Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>, <http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 21:46:30 -0500
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
To: Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>
Cc: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: Known issues with gnuwin32 development tools of year 1999
Message-ID: <19991221214630.A27884@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: Mumit Khan <khan AT NanoTech DOT Wisc DOT EDU>,
	cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
References: <19991221165152 DOT A11739 AT cygnus DOT com> <Pine DOT HPP DOT 3 DOT 96 DOT 991221184150 DOT 12093A-100000 AT hp2 DOT xraylith DOT wisc DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i
In-Reply-To: <Pine.HPP.3.96.991221184150.12093A-100000@hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu>; from khan@NanoTech.Wisc.EDU on Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 06:44:47PM -0600

On Tue, Dec 21, 1999 at 06:44:47PM -0600, Mumit Khan wrote:
>On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, Chris Faylor wrote:
>>Actually, it might be but I don't really know.  The specific problem
>>manifests during fork.  Since fork overwrites the heap, you can't rely
>>on mallocing anything until after fork returns.
>>
>>In the case of dynamic loading we probably are ok but since this has
>>bitten me once, I'm assuming that with a small tweak here or there it
>>could bite us again and then we'd be scratching our heads over this
>>again in a few months.
>
>I do understand your hesitation on this.
>
>However, fork will never work for dynamic loads -- the loading app will
>get very confused at this, and I suspect the same for exec and popen as
>well, so the problem is moot for dynamic loads.

Hmm.  You're right.  In that case we should invalidate fork for dynamic
loads.

>My proposal still stands since it won't modify the behavior of cygwin
>linked apps in any way, only change it for dynamic loads.

I guess I'm being unduly cautious.  Give me a couple of days and I'll
probably check in your malloc change.

cgf

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com