From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Feb 24 13:31: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (flutter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.147]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E92537B4EC for ; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 13:31:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f1OLV7M09879; Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:31:09 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 2001 15:28:02 CST." <200102242128.f1OLS2619633@guild.plethora.net> Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 22:31:07 +0100 Message-ID: <9877.983050267@critter> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <200102242128.f1OLS2619633@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes : >In message <9820.983050024@critter>, Poul-Henning Kamp writes: >>I think there is a language thing you don't understand here. > >No, I just disagree. It is useful for the OS to provide a hook for >memory which is *known to work* - and that is the environment C specifies. And just how will the OS know that a particular memory chip will not generate an uncorrectable ECC error ? Did you read the RFC I pointed you at ? -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message