Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 18:03:03 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-idd AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Win2k and cygwin memory leak
Message-ID: <20030807220303.GE6438@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3F30D849 DOT 8D2AA00C AT itsec-ss DOT nl> <bgsa5k$39n$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <3F324535 DOT B10AA62D AT itsec-ss DOT nl> <bgtree$r7r$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org> <20030807154057 DOT GB1689 AT redhat DOT com> <3F327990 DOT 4050104 AT cs DOT york DOT ac DOT uk> <20030807181734 DOT GA3794 AT redhat DOT com> <bguh6i$gfo$1 AT main DOT gmane DOT org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <bguh6i$gfo$1@main.gmane.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:44:08PM -0400, Rolf Campbell wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>As described, the memory leak is obviously not in cygwin.  It is in
>>windows.  I was adding some clarification to the issue by changing a
>>"may be" to a "definitely is".
>>
>>I think that this kind of clarification is more useful than your
>>message, which essentially says "If we could figure out what was causing
>>the problem then maybe it could be fixed".  Personally, I don't see how
>>that observation is useful.
>>
>>Having had some experience with this, I find it highly doubtful that any
>>useful data will come from people posting their "me too" experiences.
>>If someone wants to fix this then researching the Microsoft Knowledge
>>Base might be a place to start.  A google search might also be helpful.
>
>Could it be *possible* that cygwin leaves some memory allocated?  Does 
>windows claim to free all memory allocated by a process when it exits? 

Even Windows 95 should be enough of an operating system that it should
free memory on exit.  If that was not the case, I could easily write a
program that would bring the system to its knees.  Of course that is
easy to do with Windows 9x in any event but I haven't heard about this
particular problem there.

>What about cygwin shared memory?

I suppose it is possible that cygwin could be allocating shared memory.
That would disappear when the last process which had a pointer to it
went away.  I haven't heard that it has been the case that memory
reappears when all cygwin processes disappear.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/