From:	Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200004252015.WAA07817@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject:	Re: The new cwsdpmi
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000425113248.23128O-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Apr 25, 2000 11:33:15 am"
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 25 Apr 2000 22:15:04 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann),
	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
X-Mailer:	ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> This is quite a small amount of free RAM; expect problems with deeply
> nested invocations.  (They shouldn't crash, but you could see "No DOS
> memory" messages.)

No such messages so far. But alot of hangs...

> You could repeat the run with CWSDOMI r4, can't you?

Yes. It's been chugging along while I've been to work today. It still
compiling, so no hang so far (after thirteen hours of compiling) with
CWSDPMI 4.

> 47MB might not be enough, since you have a memory-starved machine
> which pages a lot in nested jobs.  Can you free some more disk space?

Not very easily. Does the new CWSDPMI use a lot more virtual memory
than the previous version?

> The size of CWSDPMI.SWP might not be accurate, since you have just
> crashed.  Does CHKDSK report any problems on that drive?

I didn't that until I had rebooted and I used SCANDISK, but no
problems were found.

> In other words, I don't see anything strange in this MEM report,
> except that I don't understand how did you get a DOS prompt in that
> situation.

Yes, it's interesting.


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -