Re: cygwin-developers Digest 27 Mar 2001 23:07:53 -0000 Issue 434

["Charles S. Wilson" <cwilson at ece dot gatech dot edu>]

> Subject: Re: counting down to 1.3.0
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2001 18:16:15 -0500
> From: Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com>
> Reply-To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com
> To: cygwin-developers@cygwin.com

> >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?

If I remember the thread correctly, the "something" changed between
1.1.4 or so and 1.1.8-2.  Somewhere.  Andy Piper knows a bit more about
this, but as I said, they are in feature-freeze right now and hammering
away at their own bugs.  I imagine that after the 21.4 release of
XEmacs, the XEmacs-cygwin folks will take another look at the issue.

> 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.

No, I don't think it was a snapshot issue.  It's just that the
cygwin-types on the XEmacs list hadn't updated *cygwin* in a LOONNNNGGGG
time, and so this problem was missed.  In my case, I hadn't rebuilt
XEmacs in a LOONNNGGGG time, so I missed it too. :-\
 
> 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.

Yeah, the whole discussion was over my head.  I just wanted to report
the issue -- with the "non-showstopper" disclaimer, so you guys would
know about it.

Don't panic yet.  :-)

--Chuck