X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: Robert Pendell Subject: Re: Cygwin and Windows Vista Beta 2 Date: Thu, 08 Jun 2006 00:01:01 -0400 Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigAB986A99CAE8AC7781137C56" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060516 Thunderbird/1.5.0.4 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=108E9AB6 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com --------------enigAB986A99CAE8AC7781137C56 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chuck McDevitt wrote: > Just an FYI: Cygwin's fork() implementation has an intermittent bug > when running on Windows Vista Beta 2=20 > (Beta 2 will be released to the general public soon). >=20 > Here's an example error (from running bash -l ): >=20 > 6 [main] ? (3572) c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe: *** fatal error - > couldn't alloc > ate heap, Win32 error 0, base 0x800000, top 0x810000, reserve_size > 61440, allocs > ize 65536, page_const 4096 > 62 [main] bash 4888 child_copy: stack write copy failed, > 0x22E300..0x230000 > , done 0, windows pid 2286132, Win32 error 5 > bash: fork: No error >=20 > Here's another example (doing an ls inside bash): >=20 > bash-3.1$ ls > 20 [main] ? (5248) c:\cygwin\bin\bash.exe: *** fatal error - > couldn't alloc > ate heap, Win32 error 0, base 0x800000, top 0x820000, reserve_size > 126976, alloc > size 131072, page_const 4096 > 137604415 [main] bash 4436 child_copy: stack write copy failed, > 0x22E940..0x2300 > 00, done 0, windows pid 2287732, Win32 error 5 > bash: fork: No error >=20 > The odd thing is that it sometimes works, and sometimes gives this > error. >=20 > Is it possible there were some "reserved for future use" parameters on > some Win32 calls that aren't getting initialized properly, and are now > being used by Vista? >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 Maybe someone can offer to fix this now that Vista has gone into the public beta phase. I can post links here if someone asks for them. --=20 Robert Pendell shinji257 AT uplink DOT net Thawte Web of Trust Notary CAcert Assurer --------------enigAB986A99CAE8AC7781137C56 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (MingW32) iD8DBQFEh6D/NqnRaBCOmrYRAtHaAJ4ygBixtKqA9MY9QVLci7MsieqzwgCgqVkr 1YApToRFim3T11n8a8SIIcM= =gP5A -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigAB986A99CAE8AC7781137C56--