Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2001 21:42:28 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: seebs@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions. Message-ID: <9402.983047348@critter> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 24 Feb 2001 14:37:39 CST." <200102242037.f1OKbd618343@guild.plethora.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200102242037.f1OKbd618343@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writes : >In message <xzpg0h37rlq.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes: >>Malloc() does not overcommit - the kernel does. Malloc() doesn't know >>and doesn't care. > >But it could still probably force the behavior. > >>None of these solutions are portable, however; > >Well, no, but the sole available definition of "portable" says that it is >"portable" to assume that all the memory malloc can return is really >available. No, this is not a guarantee. We also don't guarantee that you can read a file just because you managed to open it (disk errors, nfs servers going away, forced unmounts). -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9402.983047348>