Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: Chris Faylor <cgf AT cygnus DOT com>
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000 12:38:56 -0400
To: "'cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com'" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
Subject: Re: make[5]: execvp: C:/Cygwin/bin/bash.exe: No more processes
Message-ID: <20001006123856.I3094@cygnus.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: "'cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com'" <cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E11A AT IIS000>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.6i
In-Reply-To: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E11A@IIS000>; from Dautrevaux@microprocess.com on Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 04:21:39PM +0200

On Fri, Oct 06, 2000 at 04:21:39PM +0200, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Faylor [mailto:cgf AT cygnus DOT com]
>> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2000 2:47 AM
>> To: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
>> Subject: Re: make[5]: execvp: C:/Cygwin/bin/bash.exe: No more 
>> processes
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:40:10PM -0400, Guy T. Moore Jr. wrote:
>> >Cygwin'ers:
>> >
>> >
>> >I've somewhat narrowed down a make error based on the level
>> >of nested makes but using our build system the way it is.
>> >i.e.: I cannot prove that my error is only related to the
>> >      number of nested makes.
>> >
>> >So I guess this is stack related or some other resource that
>> >I would like to bump up.
>> >
>> >What resource is my error related to, and can I bump it up
>> >using what command?
>> 
>> Since the only message you're getting is "no more processes", I
>> would guess that it may be accurate.  How about adding a 'ps -ef'
>> to each recursion, to verify.
>> 
>> cygwin 1.1.4 only allows a limited number of processes.  I've removed
>> this limitation in the snapshots.  Now you can have as many processes
>> as Windows allows.
>
>Sorry, this is the answer to my preceding e-mail... should have read th
>ewhole thread (my own excuse is that outlook had split the thread for some
>mysterious reason...)
>
>> 
>> So, two things:  1) try adding the 'ps', and 2) try a snapshot.
>> 
>
>Thanks; however I'll probably wait for the next cygwin release :-)

That's a shame.  It's likely that there will be problems in the next release
if no one tests the snapshots.

cgf

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