X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:19:55 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [1.7] BUG: heap_chunk_in_mb=1536 breaks expect. Message-ID: <20090316131955.GD23977@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <49BD86E2.1080208@gmail.com> <20090316094119.GP9322@calimero.vinschen.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090316094119.GP9322@calimero.vinschen.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) 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 Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >The code handling heap_chunk_in_mb hasn't changed at all since 1.5.25, >except for the registry location where it's loaded from. I'm wondering >if the mere size of the heap chunk is enough here to disturb >functionality which requires more memory in 1.7 than in 1.5. For >instance, practically all file operations need more memory now (buffers >for conversion to UNICODE, enough room for long paths). And 1.5 Gigs + >sizeof all DLLs + sizeof executable is quite easily filling up the 2 >Gigs virtual mem size for the process. I wonder if we should just nuke this setting entirely. It shouldn't really be tremendously useful anymore. 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/