On 9 July 2013 09:13, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >>> >>> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run >>> other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I >>> can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning >>> we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, >>> but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >>> >>> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of >>> the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that >>> we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or >>> do not have the resources to solve it right now. >>> >>> After all, we are here to change the world :). >>> >> >> Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should >> stop wasting time on it? >> >> All you need to do, to change the limit, go to >> platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h >> >> And change this: >> >> #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY >> #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 >> #endif >> >> So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. >> But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. > > Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) >
If you reserve most of memory for objects, think how you could use things like freetype, opengl, cairo & any other library which allocates memory on conventional heap. also, think that DLLs and kernel needs breathing space as well. > Esteban -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
