On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 03:00:14PM -0600, Van Sickle, Gary wrote: >If not Corinna, please tell me what details I neglected to include via >my report and/or my attached cygcheck -srv. Also helpful would be an >answer to my question as to if a cygcheck from a 12-7 or -13 snapshot >would be any more useful than the 11-30 one I sent. And please hold the >sarcasm, I'm neither a mind reader nor am I in the mood to give and/or >receive any "editorializing".
Were you just seeing the "fixup_mmaps_after_fork" error and nothing else? From the source, It looks like there should have been more output than just that. If there wasn't anything other than that then I guess that's a clue. Also, as you indicated, the cygcheck output from a "dos" command line might be mildly interesting and it should be possible to generate since there won't be any forking going on. Since it looks like the only thing that could cause bash to use mmap is lots of malloc'ing is it possible that your bash environment contains lots of functions or a few very large functions? cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
