Kelly,
AFAIK, this problem was solved on win2k time so (IMHO) we should try.
-Dmitry
On 2011-10-27 21:13, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> As I recall, on Windows, if we change to 1024, it's possible the VM will not
> startup if the
> machine doesn't have a hole that big in it's virtual memory. So if we c
As I recall, on Windows, if we change to 1024, it's possible the VM will not
startup if the
machine doesn't have a hole that big in it's virtual memory. So if we change to
1024, we could
rule out people with a fragmented memory system, like running NetBeans and
FireFox and 100's of
useless Windo
Seems that instead of overriding we should be setting
MAX_VM_MEMORY = max (MAX_VM_MEMORY, 1024)
Ivan
On 2011-10-27 20:41, Volker Simonis wrote:
I've just realized that building the JDK documentation for a 32-bit
build of JDK8 on Windows (with JDK7 as bootstrap JDK) fails:
C:/OpenJDK/jdk1.7.0_01
I've just realized that building the JDK documentation for a 32-bit
build of JDK8 on Windows (with JDK7 as bootstrap JDK) fails:
C:/OpenJDK/jdk1.7.0_01/bin/java -XX:-PrintVMOptions
-XX:+UnlockDiagnosticVMOptions -XX:-LogVMOutput -client -Xmx512m
-Xms512m -XX:PermSize=32m -XX:MaxPermSize=160m
"-Xbo
