Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 11:42:33 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: A process can't have more than 63 child processes. Message-ID: <20010209114233.I18080@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20010208090337 DOT A29571 AT redhat DOT com> <000401c0923b$add86660$1a01a8c0 AT ajasoft02> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <000401c0923b$add86660$1a01a8c0@ajasoft02>; from espen.harlinn@seamos.no on Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:57:37AM +0100 On Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 02:57:37AM +0100, Espen Harlinn wrote: >Another possible solution would be to create additional threads, >and delegate the WaitForMultipleObjects, using 3 threads, one to >manage the other two, would allow 124 children to be executed. I believe that I already mentioned this scenario yesterday. I'm not interested in doing this, but I would certainly wouldn't reject a patch. cgf