On May 5, 2004 10:29 am, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 09:12 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > There's a hack in Crossover to work around that problem, but it's not
> > a proper fix. The right way is to reserve the high memory area so that
> > things don't get mapped there.
>
> What
On Thu, 6 May 2004, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
[...]
> What would such a program do on Win2K Advanced server with 3GB of user
> memory?
IIRC Windows NT/2000 only gives 3GB of address space to apps that ask
for it via a flag in the PE header. So this app would probably be all
mapped in the lower 2GBs.
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
What address range is that? At the moment I think Mikes preloader patch
only reserves the PE load area, DOS area and shared heap area. Is there
another we need?
Basically everything above 2Gb. But there's no need to do that
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I thought the kernel would be happy to mmap addresses >2gig for the
> dynamic linker - no?
It doesn't matter, we don't need that space, we just need to prevent
dlls from getting mapped there.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 11:32 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> Basically everything above 2Gb. But there's no need to do that in the
> preloader, it can be done in the normal init code.
I thought the kernel would be happy to mmap addresses >2gig for the
dynamic linker - no?
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What address range is that? At the moment I think Mikes preloader patch
> only reserves the PE load area, DOS area and shared heap area. Is there
> another we need?
Basically everything above 2Gb. But there's no need to do that in the
preloader, it can be
On Wed, 2004-05-05 at 09:12 -0700, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> There's a hack in Crossover to work around that problem, but it's not
> a proper fix. The right way is to reserve the high memory area so that
> things don't get mapped there.
What address range is that? At the moment I think Mikes pre
Mike Hearn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe this is due to the address space problems on RHEL. I think the
> latest versions of Wine have a fix, but could be wrong, I'm pretty sure
> there's a fix in CrossOver for it. Alexandre?
There's a hack in Crossover to work around that problem, but it's
On May 5, 2004 06:54 am, Mike Hearn wrote:
> On Tue, 04 May 2004 21:11:47 -0700, Bill Medland wrote:
> > When I first run the program after a reboot (of the linux) the program
> > fails When I run it again it works, and it continues to work until the
> > next reboot.
(Actually I was slightly wrong;
On Tue, 04 May 2004 21:11:47 -0700, Bill Medland wrote:
> When I first run the program after a reboot (of the linux) the program fails
> When I run it again it works, and it continues to work until the next reboot.
How does it fail?
> The BIG difference between the two runs is which memory it us
Continuing the saga!!
I have this program that I am trying to run under RedHat Enterprise Linux 3.
I have installed the 20031118 rh8 rpm.
(Big saga as to why that one)
When I first run the program after a reboot (of the linux) the program fails
When I run it again it works, and it continues to w
11 matches
Mail list logo
