X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:59:56 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: 1.7.0 CVS mmap failure Message-ID: <20070105165956.GA30828@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20070105095752.GB28768@calimero.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:55:09AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: >On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Brian Ford wrote: >>Ok, after further investigation, this is a /3GB boot.ini flag >>interaction. Unfortunately, this is a critical flag for our >>application, so all our machines are configured this way. That is why >>I failed to realize its significance before. >> >>I understand if this is now too much of an obscure case for you to be >>interested in. If so, I'll try to look into it soon on my own. I >>suspect it must have been related to your MEM_TOP_DOWN change. > >One more tidbit before I have time to find the real problem. Compiling >the test case with -Wl,large-address-aware makes the test pass on a >/3GB system. Does that mean that this is a solution for you, Brian? If the MEM_TOP_DOWN problem is just allocating memory in a place that an app isn't prepared to deal with that seems like a lurking problem with the app, anyway, since even without MEM_TOP_DOWN there is no guarantee that the address from mmap will not show up in a problematic range of memory. cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/