Re: Load size limitation

Hello Kevin,

Monday, June 18, 2007, 6:00:58 AM, you wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:05:58AM +0300, Paul Sokolovsky wrote:
>> Friday, June 15, 2007, 4:17:13 AM, you wrote:
>> >> Patch is attached, comments welcome. I'm not sure we just should
>> >> replace old alloc code with new - we faced already just too much
>> >> issues to collect and keep different allocation algorithms about. As
>> >> for selection of them and defaults, worth thinking.
>>
>> > I'd prefer to not to have multiple allocation paths. That will
>> > increase the QA effort. Since we need to support the lowest common
>> > denominator anyway, we might as well make that the standard and ensure
>> > that it works on all platforms.
>>
>> Well, workability of everything on all platform doesn't depend
>> on us in this case, but on external forces we don't control ;-). So,
>> to achieve that aim - works on all platforms - we should be prepared
>> to do some thing in different ways. However, I leave this decision to
>> you. CreateFileMapping() and friends are good candidates for this
>> lowest denominator however, as they are stamped as available since
>> wince 1.0 and generally well-known technique of working around wince's
>> limitation of 32mb process address space.

> I think we should try using CreateFileMapping as the default. I'm
> checking in that change now (with a little cleanup on the error
> paths).

> Do you have a wince 3.0 device to test this on?

        Not really, though I have in queue flashing h3600 I have with
PPC2000 to test HaRET on it ;-).

> My only concern is
> with running LockPages on the data returned from MapViewOfFile.

        Well, that seems to work so far ;-).

> However, if that is an issue, we can always rollback to using
> VirtualAlloc, or implement a run-time choice between the two. As
> above, I'd prefer to just use CreateFileMapping in all cases if we
> can.

> -Kevin

-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:pmiscml_at_gmail.com