From:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id:	<9907051617.AA14056@clio.rice.edu>
Subject:	Re: Re: gcc-crash - and a possible solution
To:	erik2 DOT berglund AT telia DOT com (Erik Berglund)
Date:	Mon, 5 Jul 1999 11:17:46 -0600 (CDT)
Cc:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
In-Reply-To:	<MAPI.Id.0016.00333138303633303030303930303055@MAPI.to.RFC822> from "Erik Berglund" at Jul 5, 99 05:19:26 pm
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4 PL20]
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Do you know if CC1 or other programs normally use
> high addresses (>2Gb) when run under win95?

W95 (and W3.x for that matter) usually will not use >2Gb addresses - this
is quite rare.  It was observed occasionally during the Quake development
on W95 and caused some fits, which was one of the reasons Quake was delivered
using the unixy sbrk and up-front memory allocation so nearptrs could also
be used.

I did lots of testing on Win 3.1 (not 3.11) but avoided multitasking there
since it crashed frequently.  Win 95 definitely shows the >2gb address 
behavior if you multitask the right programs.

Further testing seemed to have gotten rid of all of the >2Gb problems so
the non-move sbrk was left the default.  But a lot of code may have changed
in the last 4 years...

- Raw text -