X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,TBC,TW_GJ,TW_YG
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:21:38 -0600
From: Jesse Ziser <ziser AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing
References: <4EBD461E DOT 6080408 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> <4EBD696F DOT 5030708 AT cornell DOT edu> <4EC2A265 DOT 5000702 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu>
In-Reply-To: <4EC2A265.5000702@arlut.utexas.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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 11/15/2011 11:33 AM, Jesse Ziser wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 12:29 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 11/11/2011 10:58 AM, Jesse Ziser wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Since attempting to upgrade from Cygwin 1.5 to 1.7, I'm having the
>>> problem that attempting to run various programs results in a slew of
>>> errors like the following:
>>>
>>> 1 [main] bash 4276 c:\cygwin\bin\bash.EXE: *** fatal error - couldn't
>>> allo
>>> cate heap, Win32 error 487, base 0x740000, top 0x970000, reserve_size
>>> 2289664, a
>>> llocsize 2293760, page_const 4096
>>> Stack trace:
>>> Frame Function Args
>>> 0028E4EC 6102796B (0028E4EC, 00000000, 00000000, 0028E53C)
>>> 0028E7DC 6102796B (6117EC60, 00008000, 00000000, 61180977)
>>> 0028F80C 61004F1B (611B66CC, 00740000, 00970000, 0022F000)
>>> 0028F83C 6106E8C3 (7FFEFFFF, 000000FF, 00000008, 7713FE92)
>>> 0028F92C 610C133B (00000050, 02000000, 6116A724, 6116A720)
>>> 0028F95C 610064C0 (00000000, 00000002, 00000000, 753D3480)
>>> 0028FA1C 6106FC15 (61000000, 00000001, 0028FD24, 00000001)
>>> 0028FA3C 77159930 (6106F960, 61000000, 00000001, 0028FD24)
>>> 0028FB30 7715D8A9 (0028FD24, 7EFDD000, 7EFDE000, 7722206C)
>>> 0028FCB0 77172120 (0028FD24, 77120000, 70B9B815, 00000000)
>>> 0028FD00 77170BDA (0028FD24, 77120000, 00000000, 00000000)
>>> 0028FD10 77159E59 (0028FD24, 77120000, 00000000, 0001002F)
>>> End of stack trace
>>> 0 [main] bash 4768 fork: child -1 - died waiting for longjmp before
>>> initia
>>> lization, retry 0, exit code 0x100, errno 11
>>> bash: fork: retry: Resource temporarily unavailable
>>>
>>> I've tried all the standard solutions I could find suggested on the net,
>>> including the following:
>>>
>>> rebaseall
>>> peflagsall
>>> rebaseall -b 0x77000000
>>> rebaseall -b 0x76000000
>>> rebaseall -b 0x78000000
>>> doing a reinstall all using setup.exe
>>> wiping my cygwin directory and reinstalling
>>> rebaseall -b 0x60000000
>>>
>>> The last one was based on a blog post that suggested running
>>> SysInternals' ListDLLs.exe to see what DLLs from the BLODA might be
>>> sticking themselves into Cygwin processes. I found Sophos antivirus in
>>> all my Cygwin processes at address 6FA00000, and that's why I chose
>>> address 60000000 in my last rebaseall attempt.
>>
>> Your cygcheck output shows that you're not using the latest version of
>> rebase. I suggest you try it (after reading
>> /usr/share/doc/rebase/README), without the -b option. See also
>>
>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-11/msg00215.html
>>
>> for further advice about using rebase. Two other suggestions: First, you
>> could try a Cygwin snapshot (http://www.cygwin.com/snapshots/); there
>> have been some improvements in Cygwin's ability to deal with fork
>> failures. Second, does uninstalling Sophos antivirus solve the problem?
>
> Tried the new version of rebase. Did not fix the problem.
> Tried rebase -s -i. No asterisks, so presumably no collisions.
> Tried uninstalling Sophos. Did not fix the problem.
> Tried the 2011-11-08 snapshot. Seems to fix the problem!
>
> I'm not comfortable deploying a snapshot throughout the building,
> though. I will roll back to 1.5 for now and wait for that snapshot to
> make it to a release. Thanks!

Actually, I just noticed this remark:

"In summary, current Windows implementations make it
impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional
fork failures are inevitable."

in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree.  Does that mean that, 
even with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important 
Cygwin apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world?  My 
company has been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be 
important info for us.

So how serious is the above remark?  I don't see anything quite that 
strongly-phrased in the FAQ.  Maybe it should be mentioned there?

-- 
+---------------------------+
| Jesse Ziser, Code Warrior |
| Applied Research Labs: UT |
+---------------------------+

--
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