Hi John, There is no regression in the interpreter VM ... well actually there was about 6 months back, but I keep an eye on it and it's fixed again now :)
The 32-bit interpreter VM will not fail on any 2GB or 4BG boundaries, and an interpreter VM compiled for the 64-bit object format can handle images greater than 7GB (probably much more, but my 8GB PC is too small to do anything larger). I'm not sure if all of the necessary fixes are in place for the StackVM and Cog. If not, I'm sure it will be addressed over time (it's just not something that I have ever checked). I believe that Jannik is interested in running very large images, at least on an experimental basis. For anything over a few GB, this requires an interpreter VM and a 64-bit image. As you know, this is sure to run into problems for the garbage collector as the number of objects increases, but it would certainly be interesting to see how far the current garbage collector can go in real world conditions before it turns to mollasses. Dave On Wed, Aug 01, 2012 at 08:57:02AM -0400, John McIntosh wrote: > A few years back the interpreted virtual machine was fixed to allow an > image to grow to the 4 GB limit. > It is unclear to me if someone regressed the software to impose a 2GB limit > again, or if the 2GB number > mentioned is based on how things worked10 years ago? > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2012 at 5:01 AM, St?phane Ducasse > <stephane.duca...@inria.fr>wrote: > > > > > On Jul 31, 2012, at 11:46 PM, johnmci wrote: > > > > > David Lewis and I spent a far amount of time a few years back to make > > the 32 > > > vm 4gb clean. So are you running on stale knowledge here, or does the vm > > > crash when to goes over 2gb? > > > > sorry my english limit does not let me know understanding what you mean > > exactly. > > Jannik in the context of moose would like to see if we can have image > > larger than 500 mb (on mac it should be possible). > > > > Stef > >
