This is the mail archive of the libc-help@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On Tuesday 23 June 2009 17:51:37 David Wuertele wrote: > >> > i can almost guarantee you that drepper would tell you to go away, > >> > especially because your "problem" only manifests when you've turned > >> > off over commit. > >> > >> I didn't realize there was a recommended overcommit setting with glibc. > >> I tried looking for documentation of that, but I can't find it. > > > > you have a MMU, use it > > Sure, that would be any sane programmer's preference. But on this point > I am at the whim of other users of the system. I wonder if my constraint > is really that unusual? > > As long as the Glibc authors/maintainers don't specify a supported or > recommended value for the overcommit setting, I think it is reasonable > to expect system() to work even if my process has already malloced > more than half of available ram, don't you? what i think doesnt really matter, i'm not a glibc maintainer. i am familiar with past maintainer expectations and i think this would fall into the "you're doing something stupid so go away" category. i'm also guessing you're using a mips platform which falls into the "embedded crap, go buy real hardware" category. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |