X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4ECC3390.8040909@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 00:43:12 +0100 From: marco atzeri 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> <4ECC0452 DOT 2090100 AT arlut DOT utexas DOT edu> In-Reply-To: <4ECC0452.2090100@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 11/22/2011 9:21 PM, Jesse Ziser wrote: > On 11/15/2011 11:33 AM, Jesse Ziser wrote: >> >> 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? > As user of W7/64 and latest shapshots, I only noticed that a rebasall is needed more frequently than on XP. After rebaseall things are usually smooth. Regards Marco -- 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