MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu>
References: <4EBD461E.6080408@arlut.utexas.edu>	<4EBD696F.5030708@cornell.edu>	<4EC2A265.5000702@arlut.utexas.edu>	<4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:08:38 -0500
Message-ID: <CAG_2cTkVHCggBnQiCZ0Ts5HGUHwLOODduSnYKU4d=XpLp8bC8A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing
From: Jon Clugston <jon.clugston@gmail.com>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

>
> Actually, I just noticed this remark:
>
> "In summary, current Windows implementations make it
> impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional
> fork failures are inevitable."
>
> in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree.  Does that mean that, even
> with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important Cygwin
> apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world?  My company has
> been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be important info for us.
>
> So how serious is the above remark?  I don't see anything quite that
> strongly-phrased in the FAQ.  Maybe it should be mentioned there?
>

I would assume that "current Windows implementations" means XP and
above.  I have found it to be quite stable on Windows 7 once a rebase
is done.  I also believe that the possibility of "fork" failing has
always been there - even in Cygwin 1.5.  So, maybe the remark is not
quite as scary as it might at first appear.

--
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