From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11783 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2012 14:35:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11571 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2012 14:35:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from server02.mc0.hosteurope.de (HELO server02.mc0.hosteurope.de) (92.51.170.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:35:28 +0000 Received: from server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de ([10.9.0.182]); by mailout.hosteurope.de (server02.mc0.hosteurope.de) running EXperimental Internet Mailer with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) id 1S0ZlW-0003BZ-75 for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:35:26 +0100 Received: from nobody by server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S0ZlW-0003D0-4z for cygwin@cygwin.com; Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:35:26 +0100 X-Squirrel-UserHash: EhVcXl1ERwBcRx0AAAwEUR8f X-Squirrel-FromHash: VldYW1gVRgA= Message-ID: <9e752647709269ea7d2fdadb8cc1a4a7-EhVcXl1ERwBcRx0AAAwEUR8fGQlVS19cWF9EAV1EWEZaOl0IQVdyH1RXWEFaQSoDXFlZQFhSXwpZ-webmailer1@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de> In-Reply-To: References: <20120222192933.0a8e03f6.tphilipp@potion-studios.com> <20120222223256.90d4fc28.tphilipp@potion-studios.com> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 14:35:00 -0000 Subject: Re: more "address space needed ... is already occupied" problems (with snapshot of 2012-02-20) From: "Tassilo Philipp" To: cygwin@cygwin.com Reply-To: tphilipp@potion-studios.com User-Agent: Host Europe Webmailer/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-HE-Access: Yes X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2012-02/txt/msg00683.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 5:32 AM, Tassilo Philipp wrote: >> Doesn't do anything, and believe me, I tried that probably 50 times in >> all kinds of combinations... > > do not top post please. ? I just hit reply... so I don't know what you mean? Sorry if I did something weird. > From where this "etc.so" is coming for ? I guess ruby. I'll check exactly where it's from... However, I tried to rebase it as you described below, and still face the same problem. I'll check if I face the BLODA problem as Corinna pointed out. Thank you for your help, so far! > If it is something that you just built, than you should add all your > dll / so files to the rebase list using the "-T" option > > rebaseall [-b BaseAddress] [-o Offset] [-s DllSuffix] [-T FileList | > -] [-4|-8] [-v} > > so something like > > find you_build_tree -name "*.so" > /tmp/rebase_list > find you_build_tree -name "*.dll" >> /tmp/rebase_list > > and from dash > rebaseall -T /tmp/rebase_list > >> >> >> On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 04:03:45 +0100 >> marco atzeri wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Tassilo Philipp  wrote: >>> > Hello ml, >>> > >>> > I recently ran into many problems using rake to build a few of my >>> projects, whenever rake calls itself recursively (for subprojects, >>> etc. as in a typical make-style build tool setup). It's very random - >>> sometimes I get a single error, sometimes nothing, but most of the >>> time it sits there and prints the following until I kill the build: >>> > >>> >     17 [main] ruby 1028 child_info_fork::abort: address space needed >>> by 'etc.so' (0x360000) is already occupied >>> >      1 [main] ruby 2076 child_info_fork::abort: address space needed >>> by 'etc.so' (0x360000) is already occupied >>> >      1 [main] ruby 2128 child_info_fork::abort: address space needed >>> by 'etc.so' (0x360000) is already occupied >>> >     .... >>> > >>> > I checked the mailing list and found all kind of infos about similar >>> problem, but none of the solutions worked for me. What I - >>> unsuccessfully - tried so far: >>> > >>> > - using the snapshot of feb 9, 2012 (which contains a fix by Corinna, >>> that apparently solved a very similar problem pointed out a few days >>> ago) >>> > - using latest snapshot of feb 20, 2012 >>> > - using cygwin 1.7.10 and 1.7.9 >>> > - playing around with rebaseall and peflagsall, with and without >>> rebooting the machine >>> > - using ruby 1.8.7 as it is available via setup.exe >>> > - using self-built version of llatest release of ruby 1.9.3 >>> > - wiping cygwin off my machine and reinstalling a mint version >>> > - many different combinations of the above >>> > >>> > So well, I guess 'm stuck. Any ideas? >>> >>> rebaseall ? >>> That is the standard solution for fork problem. >>> http://cygwin.com/faq-nochunks.html#faq.using.fixing-fork-failures >>> >>> It is likely needed any time you install a different cygwin version >>> including snapshots >>> or upgrade any other packages. >>> >>> Regards >>> Marco >>> >>> -- >>> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html >>> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/ >>> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html >>> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple >>> >>> > > -- > Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple > > > -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple