On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:55:09AM -0600, Brian Ford wrote: >On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Brian Ford wrote: >>Ok, after further investigation, this is a /3GB boot.ini flag >>interaction. Unfortunately, this is a critical flag for our >>application, so all our machines are configured this way. That is why >>I failed to realize its significance before. >> >>I understand if this is now too much of an obscure case for you to be >>interested in. If so, I'll try to look into it soon on my own. I >>suspect it must have been related to your MEM_TOP_DOWN change. > >One more tidbit before I have time to find the real problem. Compiling >the test case with -Wl,large-address-aware makes the test pass on a >/3GB system.
Does that mean that this is a solution for you, Brian? If the MEM_TOP_DOWN problem is just allocating memory in a place that an app isn't prepared to deal with that seems like a lurking problem with the app, anyway, since even without MEM_TOP_DOWN there is no guarantee that the address from mmap will not show up in a problematic range of memory. 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/
