X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: "Michael Kairys" Subject: Re: BitDefender again Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:19:11 -0400 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <20090826013626.GC9672@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4A9521B7.2030806@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4A9521B7.2030806@gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 Thanks for the replies... > the suggestion to use a base address in the 0x35000000 area (or indeed > any of the others they mentioned) is going to horribly frag your heap and > bork > your maximum allocatable memory limit, isn't it? I don't know. How would I tell? > Wonder if it wouldn't work just as well to rebase /their/ DLL? I don't know. Sounds scary given the liberties an AV program seems to take with the operating system... Should I try? How would I? That aside, it sounds like my options are: (1) Try what they said and see what happens (2) Run with their "active virus scan" turned off (3) Change to another AV product (any suggestions? :) -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple