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 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: 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 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