From owner-freebsd-current  Thu Apr 15 12:37:27 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from misha.cisco.com (misha.cisco.com [171.69.206.50])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F29614E26
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 12:37:20 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from mi@misha.cisco.com)
Received: (from mi@localhost)
	by misha.cisco.com (8.9.2/8.9.1) id PAA98792
	for current@freebsd.org; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from mi)
From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@misha.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199904151934.PAA98792@misha.cisco.com>
Subject: Re: swap on Irix (overcommiting, etc.)
To: current@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 15:34:54 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: mi@aldan.algebra.com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL52 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

Chuck Robey once wrote:

> This is the part that gets me. You keep claiming ANSI C
> non-compliance, and we are compliant. If you want to claim
> non-compliance, then get out the spec and quote chapter and verse.
> There is nothing in the spec that says how the underlying OS has to
> treat processes on a global scale.

Sorry. I'm just repeating what Ladavac Marino wrote in
<55586E7391ACD211B9730000C11002761795EB@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at>:

	LM: Please note that memory overcommit architectures are a
	LM: rather common optimization; FreeBSD is one of them. They
	LM: do, however, break the ISO/ANSI C conformance (strictly
	LM: speaking).

Since there was no immediate (nor later) rebuttal, I assumed, that
everyone quietly agreed...

	-mi


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message