From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Feb 26 12: 2:33 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from guild.plethora.net (guild.plethora.net [205.166.146.8]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1CF037B491 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 12:02:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from seebs@guild.plethora.net) Received: from guild.plethora.net (seebs@localhost.plethora.net [127.0.0.1]) by guild.plethora.net (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id f1QK2N612484 for ; Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:25 -0600 (CST) Message-Id: <200102262002.f1QK2N612484@guild.plethora.net> From: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Reply-To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 26 Feb 2001 16:53:23 -0300." Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001 14:02:23 -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , >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