Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Message-ID: <00b001c02fdf$d6a7af60$f7c723cb@lifelesswks> From: "Robert Collins" To: References: <17B78BDF120BD411B70100500422FC6309E11A AT IIS000> <20001006123856 DOT I3094 AT cygnus DOT com> Subject: Re: make[5]: execvp: C:/Cygwin/bin/bash.exe: No more processes Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 08:53:16 +1100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.3018.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.3018.1300 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Oct 2000 21:49:26.0304 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BD81A00:01C02FDF] I'm about to get the latest snapshot code to try stefans experimental ioctl patch. To the woodcutter song: "I'm a guinea pig an I'm ok, I test code and aI crash all day...." Rob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Faylor" To: Sent: Saturday, October 07, 2000 3:38 AM Subject: Re: make[5]: execvp: C:/Cygwin/bin/bash.exe: No more processes > 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 > > -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com