Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:42:33 -0500
From:	Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: A process can't have more than 63 child processes.
Message-ID:	<20010209114233.I18080@redhat.com>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20010208090337 DOT A29571 AT redhat DOT com> <000401c0923b$add86660$1a01a8c0 AT ajasoft02>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To:	<000401c0923b$add86660$1a01a8c0@ajasoft02>; from espen.harlinn@seamos.no on Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:57:37AM +0100

On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:57:37AM +0100, Espen Harlinn wrote:
>Another possible solution would be to create additional threads,
>and delegate the WaitForMultipleObjects, using 3 threads, one to
>manage the other two, would allow 124 children to be executed.

I believe that I already mentioned this scenario yesterday.

I'm not interested in doing this, but I would certainly wouldn't reject
a patch.

cgf

- Raw text -