Subject: Re: SUMMARY: Known issues with gnuwin32 development tools of year 1999
From: Chris Faylor <[email-masked]>
To: Mumit Khan <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 16:51:52 -0500

On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 02:35:10PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>[ Only following up in Cygwin mailing list ]
>
>Chris Faylor <[email-masked]> writes:
>
>> Just to add a little bit more info, Mumit submitted a patch which
>> probably will fix the problem but the patch uses malloc for temporary
>> storage.  I've recently been bitten by the use of malloc in
>> initialization code so I've been futilely trying to think of some way
>> around this.  It's probable that Mumit's use of malloc won't really
>> cause a problem but I'd like to avoid it if I can, so I've been letting
>> this simmer in my unconscious mind for a while to see if it comes up
>> with something interesting.
>
>Before I forget, I do have a patch that uses malloc for dynamic loading,
>but keeps event-based synchronization for the "normal", ie., link-time 
>loading. Is that acceptable? If so, I'll dig it out ... 
>
>With this, you can let it simmer while allowing both static and dynamic 
>loading to work ;-)

Actually, it might be but I don't really know.  The specific problem
manifests during fork.  Since fork overwrites the heap, you can't
rely on mallocing anything until after fork returns.

In the case of dynamic loading we probably are ok but since this has
bitten me once, I'm assuming that with a small tweak here or there
it could bite us again and then we'd be scratching our heads over
this again in a few months.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to [email-masked]