Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:23 -0600 From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <200102262002.f1QK2N612484@guild.plethora.net> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:53:23 -0300." <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261650340.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.LNX.4.33.0102261650340.5502-100000@duckman.distro.conectiva>, >And maybe, just maybe, they'll succeed in getting their >idea of non-overcommit working with a patch which doesn't >change dozens of places in the kernel and doesn't add >any measurable overhead. If it adds overhead, fine, make it a kernel option. :) Anyway, no, I'm not going to contribute code right now. If I get time to do this at all, I'll probably do it to UVM first. My main objection was to the claim that the C standard allows random segfaults. It doesn't. And yes, bad hardware is a conformance violation. :) -s 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?200102262002.f1QK2N612484>