Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Reply-To:	Cygwin List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Message-Id:	<6.0.1.1.0.20040118145658.038f70b0@127.0.0.1>
X-Sender:
Date:	Sun, 18 Jan 2004 15:04:05 -0500
To:	"Benson Margulies" <bim2003 AT basistech DOT com>, <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
From:	Larry Hall <cygwin-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Subject:	Re: Windows Server 2003 on AMD64, One More Ping
In-Reply-To:	<E8CC5F35918C084F8DBF32A5161C4003066CED@mailserver.basistec h.net>
References:	<E8CC5F35918C084F8DBF32A5161C4003066CED AT mailserver DOT basistech DOT net>
Mime-Version:	1.0

At 01:12 PM 1/18/2004, Benson Margulies you wrote:
>TWIMC,
>
>Some time ago, I reported that fork() didn't work when running the
>current cygwin distro on the AMD64 on Windows. At the time, I debugged
>far enough to get an approximate picture of what Cygwin was doing with
>VirtualXXX calls to implement fork, and I posted some questions in the
>hopes of understanding it well enough to try to make a fix. As far as I
>could see, I didn't get a reply.
>
>To summarize, it seemed to me as if the code was making some assumptions
>about what virtual addresses ranges would be available and assigned
>under certain conditions related to fork, and that these assumptions
>were not valid on the AMD64, leading to failures.
>
>Presumably, a ground-rule of Cygwin is to program only to the documented
>Win32 API, and not to resort to the NT API substrate as illustrated in
>Nebbett.
>
>In any case, the offer is still open; if someone would be so kind as to
>offer up a summary of the design of fork(), I'd be willing to make some
>effort to diagnose and propose mods to adapt it.


Didn't you get some reply?  I seem to remember some discussion of the 
subject, though maybe I'm thinking of some other related inquiry.
I'd say your general summary of what fork assumes is correct.  I don't
really know anymore about it though.  If it's a problem for AMD64, I 
guess that's not too much of a surprise, given the differences in 
address space.  However, the assumptions are made to support fork()
semantics, which don't map into the API.  So that's the problem, if 
it wasn't already obvious to you.  I'm sure the list would be interested
in hearing the results of any analysis you undertake though!


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746                     


--
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/

- Raw text -