Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/03/26/18:16:14
On Mon, Mar 26, 2001 at 06:05:05PM -0500, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> Subject: counting down to 1.3.0
>> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 12:52:01 -0500
>> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
>> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
>> To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
>>
>> I think that we have addressed all of the problems that I know of with the
>> current CVS version of cygwin.
>>
>> I'd like to have two things happen before I make a new release:
>>
>> 1) Corinna has some very minor changes to mmap to make things work
>> better with new versions of gcc.
>>
>> 2) I'd like to resolve the newlib/cygwin pthreads issues and get
>> Rober Collins' latest patches into cygwin.
>>
>> Is there anything else outstanding that I should know about?
>
>the following is NOT a showstopper, but I thought I should mention it.
>Recently, XEmacs-NT-cygwin had to make "--rel-alloc=no" the default,
>turning off the "relocating malloc" option. In the past, XEmacs'
>configure autodetect failed to find a "relocating malloc" and all was
>well. Recently, "something" changed and XEmacs' configure suddenly
>found a "relocating malloc" and configured itself to use it. But the
>"relocating malloc" doesn't work (at least, not the way XEmacs is using
>it).
>
>Since XEmacs is gearing up for a 21.4 release within weeks, they just
>made "--rel-alloc=no" the default -- forcibly reverting to the old
>behavior. No harm, no foul.
Are you saying that something changed in recent snapshots or is someone
building cygwin themselves?
It is distressing that people are working around problems in software
that hasn't even been released rather than reporting the problem and
trying to work to rectify it.
I guess if I knew what at "relocating malloc" was I might have a clue
as to what changed in cygwin, if anything but I obviously don't know
what this is all about.
cgf
- Raw text -