Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 14:14:54 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: A process can't have more than 63 child processes.
Message-ID: <20010208141454.A30550@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References: <s1sofwd7dq0 DOT fsf AT jaist DOT ac DOT jp> <20010208090337 DOT A29571 AT redhat DOT com> <3A82AB0A DOT 7BAAFAE1 AT yahoo DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i
In-Reply-To: <3A82AB0A.7BAAFAE1@yahoo.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:19:54AM -0500

On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:19:54AM -0500, Earnie Boyd wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Yep.  This has been noted before.  The WaitForMultipleObjects
>>restriction makes it impractical to have more than 63 children.
>>
>>I guess we should set PSIZE to 64.
>>
>
>Your scope seems limiting.  What about a Cygwin developed
>WaitForMultipleObjects?  Perhaps even using the one from ReactOS.  ;) I
>know, I know, where's the patch?

Yep.  Since I wrote the code and have been living happily with it for
three years you can safely surmise that extending the limit is of
little interest to me.

I don't know of any way of extending the limit without adding another
thread to cygwin which I am really loath to do.

cgf