To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68890
User mhu changed the following: What |Old value |New value ================================================================================ CC|'' |'kr' -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 30 04:48:32 -0700 2006 ------- Hi Michael, Hmmm, while I'm indeed the only maintainer of the osl/thread.c implementation, I guess KR should review this proposed change first. Also, I'm not entirely sure that what you see in (writeable private) memory reduction is virtual (unmapped) or real (mapped) memory; i.e. my question would be whether each thread stack actually gets mapped up to it's maximum grow size right from the start (I'd suspect / hope that it gets paged in on demand). So, possibly there's not so much real savings. But, as said, I leave the initial review to KR. mhu->kr: Can you please have a look at this? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments. http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]