From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10004252236.AA16846@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: The new cwsdpmi
To: ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se (Martin Str|mberg)
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 17:36:47 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
In-Reply-To: <200004252015.WAA07817@father.ludd.luth.se> from "Martin Str|mberg" at Apr 25, 2000 10:15:04 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> No such messages so far. But alot of hangs...

Which is bad.  Can't even diagnose the problem.

> > You could repeat the run with CWSDOMI r4, can't you?
> 
> Yes. It's been chugging along while I've been to work today. It still
> compiling, so no hang so far (after thirteen hours of compiling) with
> CWSDPMI 4.

Seems to indicate something's broke in r5, or it's parameters are messed up.
This is why I stress test before releasing.

> Not very easily. Does the new CWSDPMI use a lot more virtual memory
> than the previous version?

It should use the same amount of memory as r4.