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 21:46:30 -0500

On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 06:44:47PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
>>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.
>
>I do understand your hesitation on this.
>
>However, fork will never work for dynamic loads -- the loading app will
>get very confused at this, and I suspect the same for exec and popen as
>well, so the problem is moot for dynamic loads.

Hmm.  You're right.  In that case we should invalidate fork for dynamic
loads.

>My proposal still stands since it won't modify the behavior of cygwin
>linked apps in any way, only change it for dynamic loads.

I guess I'm being unduly cautious.  Give me a couple of days and I'll
probably check in your malloc change.

cgf

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