Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 10:08:08 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <a.reilly@lake.com.au> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: lyndon@orthanc.ab.ca, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Swap overcommit Message-ID: <19990716100808.A92294@gurney.reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <378DF4C8.5E7B4C44@newsguy.com>; from Daniel C. Sobral on Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:48:41PM %2B0900 References: <199907141938.NAA05484@orthanc.ab.ca> <378DF4C8.5E7B4C44@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jul 15, 1999 at 11:48:41PM +0900, Daniel C. Sobral wrote: > Actually, applications are written assuming that malloc() will not > fail, generally speaking. Is this really the case? I'm pretty sure I've _never_ ignored the possibility of a NULL return from malloc, and I've been using it for nearly 20 years. I usually print a message and exit, but I never ignore it. I thought that was pretty standard practise. This is just a random comment, orthogonal to the overcommit issue, but I've seen both you and Matthew say this now, and I was surprised both times. -- Andrew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990716100808.A92294>