X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com From: "Michael Kairys" Subject: Re: BitDefender again Date: Thu, 3 Sep 2009 15:32:01 -0400 Lines: 15 Message-ID: References: <20090826013626 DOT GC9672 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A9521B7 DOT 2030806 AT gmail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 "Michael Kairys" wrote in message news:h7j7ha$474$1 AT ger DOT gmane DOT org... >> Or you can go the easy route, and follow the instructions they have >> provided to rebase cygwin.dll. > > I shall try their instructions and report back. (There must be other > BitDefender users similarily inconvenienced by version 2010 :) rebase -b 0x35000000 seems to have worked. But can anyone say more about Dave Korn's comment that it could "horribly frag your heap and bork your maximum allocatable memory limit"? Can I test this somehow? -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple