Hello, Sergey Bugaev, le jeu. 20 avril 2023 14:51:04 +0300, a ecrit: > Why was this not an issue for us on i386?
See 56010b73e81e2cb1082e418699f98353598fe671 and its __mig_memcpy. > VM_MAX_USER_ADDRESS, which is defined to VM_MAX_ADDRESS, which is then > defined to 0xc0000000, same as on i386. That's of course too small. > Can we bump this substantially? Of course ! Samuel
