From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10454 invoked by alias); 23 Nov 2011 01:08:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 10446 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Nov 2011 01:08:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f45.google.com) (74.125.82.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:08:39 +0000 Received: by wwg38 with SMTP id 38so1079342wwg.2 for ; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:08:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.180.73.130 with SMTP id l2mr21274647wiv.21.1322010518371; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:08:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.8.210 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:08:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu> References: <4EBD461E.6080408@arlut.utexas.edu> <4EBD696F.5030708@cornell.edu> <4EC2A265.5000702@arlut.utexas.edu> <4ECC0452.2090100@arlut.utexas.edu> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: "Couldn't allocate heap" - tried rebasing From: Jon Clugston To: cygwin@cygwin.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2011-11/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 > > Actually, I just noticed this remark: > > "In summary, current Windows implementations make it > impossible to implement a perfectly reliable fork, and occasional > fork failures are inevitable." > > in winsup/doc/overview2.sgml in the source tree. =A0Does that mean that, = even > with the improvements mentioned above, we cannot expect important Cygwin > apps/scripts to always work reliably in a post-WinXP world? =A0My company= has > been moving from Win2K/XP to Win7, so this would be important info for us. > > So how serious is the above remark? =A0I don't see anything quite that > strongly-phrased in the FAQ. =A0Maybe it should be mentioned there? > I would assume that "current Windows implementations" means XP and above. I have found it to be quite stable on Windows 7 once a rebase is done. I also believe that the possibility of "fork" failing has always been there - even in Cygwin 1.5. So, maybe the remark is not quite as scary as it might at first appear. -- 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