Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This should start allocating memory from below 0x4000, to windows
> processes after the area between 0x4000, to 0x8000, is full,
> right?
That would be nice, but unfortunately it's not what it does. Also even
if it worked it wouldn't help for
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 00:32, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Wine reports that apps have 2GB of VM in GlobalMemoryStatus, but they
> > actually only have 1GB. Isn't that a Wine bug?
>
> Not really, you do have 2GB of VM, you just can't allocate all of it
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:42 -0800, Michael Ost wrote:
> What's involved in doing such a hack/syscall? Are there any patches that
> make this change lying around somewhere that I could look at?
I thought the flex-mmap patches in very recent kernels changed stuff so
you could do this. I'd ask on th
Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Wine reports that apps have 2GB of VM in GlobalMemoryStatus, but they
> actually only have 1GB. Isn't that a Wine bug?
Not really, you do have 2GB of VM, you just can't allocate all of it
with VirtualAlloc(NULL) because of kernel limitations. You can stil
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 11:12, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 01:09, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > > That's a kernel limitation. If you hack the kernel to start allocating
> > > from lower addresses (or implement the syscall we discuss
Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 01:09, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > That's a kernel limitation. If you hack the kernel to start allocating
> > from lower addresses (or implement the syscall we discussed to let us
> > specify the mmap range) you can get the full 2GB
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 01:09, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > will stop at 1,022,976k (1GB) on any wine machine. In winxp it goes up
> > to 2GB, as it ought to.
>
> That's a kernel limitation. If you hack the kernel to start allocating
> from lower addresses
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Julliard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Yep, it does. Give it a try. As far as I can tell:
>>
>> int total = 0; for (;;) { LPVOID* leak = ::VirtualAlloc(NULL,
>> 1048576, MEM_RESERVE, PROT_NOACCE
Michael Ost <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Yep, it does. Give it a try. As far as I can tell:
>
> int total = 0;
> for (;;) {
> LPVOID* leak = ::VirtualAlloc(NULL, 1048576,
> MEM_RESERVE, PROT_NOACCESS);
> if (leak) {
> total += 1048576/1024;
> printf("Allocated %ldk\r", total);
>
> "Kuba" == Kuba Ober <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> * VirtualLock does nothing in Wine
Kuba> VirtualLock does nothing in win95,98,ME as well :)
Kuba> I bet the correct behaviour for wine is to do anything in
Kuba> VirtualLock only if you set windows version to NT/2000/XP. Did
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 20:13, you wrote:
> > * VirtualLock does nothing in Wine
> VirtualLock does nothing in win95,98,ME as well :)
>
> I bet the correct behaviour for wine is to do anything in VirtualLock
> only if you set windows version to NT/2000/XP. Did you do it?
Good point. But the setting
> * VirtualLock does nothing in Wine
VirtualLock does nothing in win95,98,ME as well :)
I bet the correct behaviour for wine is to do anything in VirtualLock only if
you set windows version to NT/2000/XP. Did you do it?
Anyway, mlock() seems to work fine, so this should be implementable.
> * Wi
On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:16, Raphael wrote:
> seems we have a bug report about that problem (behavior differences)
> http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=890
I guess I am adding VirtualLock and VirtualAlloc to the list of APIs
that don't work the same in Wine vs Windows. Bug #890 is about
Virtu
Hi,
interesting
seems we have a bug report about that problem (behavior differences)
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=890
Regards,
Raphael
pgphdqoXTIGCs.pgp
Description: PGP signature
There are major differences in the handling of virtual memory in Wine vs
WinXP that are causing problems for my winelib application. Can someone
provide background and/or workarounds for these issues?
As near as I can tell the main differences are:
* VirtualLock does nothing in Wine
* Wine makes n
15 matches
Mail list logo
