Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:45:06 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: alk@pobox.com Cc: chuckr@picnic.mat.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swap-related problems Message-ID: <37165DE2.53AEA557@newsguy.com> References: <14102.16644.178732.291963@avalon.east> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904151712580.18456-100000@picnic.mat.net> <14102.23330.685207.587287@avalon.east>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Kimball wrote: > > Quoth Chuck Robey on Thu, 15 April: > : No, we are not. Malloc does in fact fail on those conditions. > > Again, it seems to be a reasonable disagreement over semantics. To my > mind, you haven't allocated memory successfully unless you can use it > without processes dying, in this case including your self. To yours, > the fact that you might be able to use the memory with no further > program action suffices to constitute a successful allocation. > > No one is denigrating the system. We just disagree about what > constitutes a successful allocation of memory. Err, not "we". You can go disagree with the ANSI standard. We, we'll stand by it. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org "Well, Windows works, using a loose definition of 'works'..." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37165DE2.53AEA557>