From owner-freebsd-chat Thu Apr 15 14:49:44 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B879D14E80 for ; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 14:49:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id GAA15162; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:46:52 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <37165DE2.53AEA557@newsguy.com> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 06:45:06 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: alk@pobox.com Cc: chuckr@picnic.mat.net, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: swap-related problems References: <14102.16644.178732.291963@avalon.east> <14102.23330.685207.587287@avalon.east> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org 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