> Sorry, Erik, I misunderstood your point. no need to be sorry.
> I guess what you are pointing out is that on Plan 9, presumably, since > the Go runtime is the only thing that might call brk(), it will always > get a virtually contiguous heap. Therefore, instead of a huge upfront > allocation, Go runtime could call brk() as needed. > > Can we safely assume that only the Go runtime will call brk()? What if > we link a library into Go that calls brk() as well -- won't that > violate Go's model? Probably not worth worrying about since Russ says > he's good with the other change. i didn't think of that, but i wouldn't think one would want to do that. the effort, say, to glue ndb structures into go's world would seem on par with rewriting the library. and it would be a great oppertunity to clean up some crunch. one big challenge in gluing in c libraries is that you couldn't easily pass any sort of pointer back in from c. it would break the gc. - erik
