X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4E406C21.7010007@cs.umass.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2011 19:07:13 -0400
From: Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: emacs and large-address awareness under recent snapshots
References: <4E3C79E0 DOT 3030506 AT cornell DOT edu>	<20110807113354 DOT GG11601 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>	<20110807115056 DOT GI11601 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>	<4E3EA497 DOT 7040402 AT cornell DOT edu> <4E3EBAEF DOT 1030004 AT cornell DOT edu>	<20110807200222 DOT GK11601 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>	<4E3F13D8 DOT 7090608 AT cornell DOT edu> <4E3FE323 DOT 9020201 AT cornell DOT edu>	<20110808155048 DOT GA28218 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de>	<4E40093D DOT 10107 AT cornell DOT edu>	<20110808162556 DOT GM11601 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <87sjpbhij7 DOT fsf AT Rainer DOT invalid> <4E404424 DOT 9000600 AT cornell DOT edu> <4E40526C DOT 9080605 AT cornell DOT edu>
In-Reply-To: <4E40526C.9080605@cornell.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.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 8/8/2011 5:17 PM, Ken Brown wrote:

> do
> newsize *= 2;
> while ((__malloc_size_t) BLOCK ((char *) result + size) > newsize);
>
> My guess now is that there was some invalid pointer arithmetic somewhere that led to this, but I
> don't have time at the moment to look for it. I'll do it later (or tomorrow) if no one beats me to it.

Possibly, Ken. I also wonder about signed vs unsigned calculations
and such. We are looking at the higher end of the address space,
which means negative addresses when considered as signed numbers.

I'm not sure what the above is doing, but if it is trying to
double its understanding of the heap size, based on using the
current end of the heap (result?) as a measure of size, then
if the heap is at 0x80000000, doubling that gives 0 in a 32-bit
address space ...

Best wishes -- Eliot Moss

--
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