X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=4.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-id: <4ECC7565.2090304@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 23:24:05 -0500 From: "Larry Hall (Cygwin)" Reply-to: cygwin@cygwin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0 MIME-version: 1.0 To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing References: <4EBD461E.6080408@arlut.utexas.edu> <4EBD696F.5030708@cornell.edu> <4EC2A265.5000702@arlut.utexas.edu> <4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu> In-reply-to: Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 11/22/2011 8:08 PM, Jon Clugston wrote: >> >> 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. The fork issue is nothing new. It has existed for a long time. The 1.5 series was certainly not immune. The fact that fork failures may be more prevalent now than before has as much to do with the growth in the number of packages available with Cygwin as it does with the changes in the Windows environment that work against the fork implementation. And there have been efforts to combat the negative impacts of both of these changes, particularly in post 1.7.9 snapshots (and eventually packages. :-) ) My recommendation is to not worry about fork failures until you see them and then install the rebase package, read the readme, and follow the directions found there. In other words, don't worry more now than you did before. ;-) -- Larry _____________________________________________________________________ A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email? -- 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