From: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
Message-Id: <10206110513.AA18793@clio.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: unixy sbrk and win2k
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 00:13:08 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: acottrel AT ihug DOT com DOT au, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1020611080226.2609C-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 11, 2002 08:02:56 AM
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

> > This is only used if the application is built with the unixy sbrk() flag
> > set.  Almost none of the applications are built that way by default, so 
> > it's not worth while building everything with this patch.  At this time,
> > I only know of emacs using it.
> 
> Yes, I think Emacs is the only application built with a unixy sbrk.

Thus, to test this patch we would need someone to do an emacs rebuild with
updated crt0.o and see if it behaves better on Win2K.  In particular, if
emacs fields any hardware interrupts and does anything interesting with
them, I wonder if they still fire.  SIGINT?