[hackers] Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions.

[David Gilbert]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel C Sobral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

Daniel> Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
>>  > > 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.
>> 
>> Show me a modern OS (excluding real-time and/or embedded OSes) that
>> makes this guarantee.

Daniel> Solaris and AIX (on AIX this is optional on a global or
Daniel> per-application level).

IIRC, Digital-UNIX or OSF-1 ... or whatever it's called now.  I seem
to remember the first Alphas that arrived to a company I worked for
had this set globally in the OS by default.  Due to the bloat of the
OS and Motif and other such things, they required simply amazing
amounts of swap just to run.

Dave.

-- 
============================================================================
|David Gilbert, Velocet Communications.       | Two things can only be     |
|Mail:       [EMAIL PROTECTED]             |  equal if and only if they |
|http://www.velocet.net/~dgilbert             |   are precisely opposite.  |
=========================================================GLO================

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message