Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com content-class: urn:content-classes:message Subject: RE: newlib/libc/stdlib/mallocr.c MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 22:52:59 +1000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: From: "Robert Collins" To: "Earnie Boyd" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id g32Cr5Y02441 > -----Original Message----- > From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:earnie_boyd AT yahoo DOT com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 10:44 PM > To: Earnie Boyd > Subject: newlib/libc/stdlib/mallocr.c > > > In my modifying Cygwin source for MSYS I began having issues > with malloc and the offending pieces being within this > source. I noticed that the HAVE_MMAP macro was set to 0 by > default instead of 1 by default as Dave's documentation says > that it does. Modifying the macro value to 1 caused all of > the problems I was experiencing to disappear. > > Do other Cygwin developers see benefit for a patch to newlib? > > Should I create a newlib patch regardless of the benefit to Cygwin? FWIW, I've had trouble with HAVE_MMAP on in dlmalloc :[. Some systems seem to allocate memory differently than the HAVE_MMAP code on win32 expected. Rob