X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <49BE550E.4000806@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:33:02 +0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: [1.7] BUG: heap_chunk_in_mb=1536 breaks expect. References: <49BD86E2 DOT 1080208 AT gmail DOT com> <20090316094119 DOT GP9322 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090316131955 DOT GD23977 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> In-Reply-To: <20090316131955.GD23977@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 10:41:19AM +0100, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> The code handling heap_chunk_in_mb hasn't changed at all since 1.5.25, >> except for the registry location where it's loaded from. I'm wondering >> if the mere size of the heap chunk is enough here to disturb >> functionality which requires more memory in 1.7 than in 1.5. For >> instance, practically all file operations need more memory now (buffers >> for conversion to UNICODE, enough room for long paths). And 1.5 Gigs + >> sizeof all DLLs + sizeof executable is quite easily filling up the 2 >> Gigs virtual mem size for the process. > > I wonder if we should just nuke this setting entirely. It shouldn't really > be tremendously useful anymore. Well, let me check whether it's possible to link libgcj without it first... cheers, DaveK -- 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/