Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 23:48:09 -0500 From: "Joseph Gleason" <clash@tasam.com> To: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net>, "Ian Campbell" <ianc@ednet.co.uk> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process Message-ID: <003701c0aaaf$a4566ce0$dc02010a@fireduck.com> References: <Pine.LNX.4.31L2.0103120005460.9179-100000@pachabel.ednet.co.uk> <20010311204130.N18351@fw.wintelcom.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@wintelcom.net> To: "Ian Campbell" <ianc@ednet.co.uk> Cc: <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2001 23:41 Subject: Re: Greater than 2GB per process > * Ian Campbell <ianc@ednet.co.uk> [010311 16:14] wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Could anybody advise me on the possiblity of having greater than > > 2GB per process on FreeBSD. I have tried increasing the limit beyond this > > and the kernel compiles successfully - however libc causes every process > > to segfault. I am assuming that just recompiling the C library wouldn't do > > the trick but perhaps someone could confirm this. > > It's not possible on the Intel archetecture with the current system, > changing the current intel system to use > 2GB processes would cost too > much in terms of performance (64 bit values on a 32 bit system). > > At least that's what i've been told. > I know very little about how kernel or low level processor stuff works, but shouldn't we be able to do a 4GB process on a 32-bit system? The limitation of 2GB per process should only be an issue if there is some need to use signed numbers, right? Joe Gleason 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?003701c0aaaf$a4566ce0$dc02010a>