X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status:	No, hits=4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE
X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-id:	<4ECC7565.2090304@cygwin.com>
Date:	Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:24:05 -0500
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing
References:	<4EBD461E DOT 6080408 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4EBD696F DOT 5030708 AT cornell DOT edu> <4EC2A265 DOT 5000702 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4ECC0452 DOT 2090100 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <CAG_2cTkVHCggBnQiCZ0Ts5HGUHwLOODduSnYKU4d=XpLp8bC8A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-reply-to:	<CAG_2cTkVHCggBnQiCZ0Ts5HGUHwLOODduSnYKU4d=XpLp8bC8A@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 11/22/2011 8:08 PM, Jon Clugston wrote:
>>
>> Actually, I just noticed this remark:
>>
>> "In summary, current Windows implementations make it
>> impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional
>> fork failures are inevitable."
>>
>> in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree.  Does that mean that, even
>> with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important Cygwin
>> apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world?  My company has
>> been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be important info for us.
>>
>> So how serious is the above remark?  I don't see anything quite that
>> strongly-phrased in the FAQ.  Maybe it should be mentioned there?
>>
>
> I would assume that "current Windows implementations" means XP and
> above.  I have found it to be quite stable on Windows 7 once a rebase
> is done.  I also believe that the possibility of "fork" failing has
> always been there - even in Cygwin 1.5.  So, maybe the remark is not
> quite as scary as it might at first appear.

The fork issue is nothing new.  It has existed for a long time.  The 1.5
series was certainly not immune.  The fact that fork failures may be more
prevalent now than before has as much to do with the growth in the number
of packages available with Cygwin as it does with the changes in the
Windows environment that work against the fork implementation.  And there 
have been efforts to combat the negative impacts of both of these changes,
particularly in post 1.7.9 snapshots (and eventually packages. :-) )  My
recommendation is to not worry about fork failures until you see them and
then install the rebase package, read the readme, and follow the directions
found there.  In other words, don't worry more now than you did before. ;-)

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -