X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:59:56 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: 1.7.0 CVS mmap failure
Message-ID: <20070105165956.GA30828@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701041715140 DOT 3520 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20070105095752 DOT GB28768 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701050959060 DOT 2704 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0701051054010 DOT 280 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.CYG.4.58.0701051054010.280@PC1163-8460-XP.flightsafety.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/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

On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:55:09AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Brian Ford wrote:
>>Ok, after further investigation, this is a /3GB boot.ini flag
>>interaction.  Unfortunately, this is a critical flag for our
>>application, so all our machines are configured this way.  That is why
>>I failed to realize its significance before.
>>
>>I understand if this is now too much of an obscure case for you to be
>>interested in.  If so, I'll try to look into it soon on my own.  I
>>suspect it must have been related to your MEM_TOP_DOWN change.
>
>One more tidbit before I have time to find the real problem.  Compiling
>the test case with -Wl,large-address-aware makes the test pass on a
>/3GB system.

Does that mean that this is a solution for you, Brian?  If the
MEM_TOP_DOWN problem is just allocating memory in a place that an app
isn't prepared to deal with that seems like a lurking problem with the
app, anyway, since even without MEM_TOP_DOWN there is no guarantee that
the address from mmap will not show up in a problematic range of memory.

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/