In message <199904141314.jaa24...@kot.ne.mediaone.net>, Mikhail Teterin writes: >Poul-Henning Kamp once stated: > >=>Well, this is just an implementation detail, is not it? I don't >=>mean to critisize, or anything, but such thing as "no available >=>memory" is a fairly intuitive... Coming down, again, the malloc >=>should return a usable memory if available and NULL if it's not. >=>Is not this a "natural" semantics? Why can a program die because >=>_another_ program ate up all the rest of the memory? >= >=You know, this strikes me about as productive a discussion as the >[...] >=Very very fundamental to UNIX philosophy is the maxim that it is >=roots responsibility to configure the system right. > >I'm sorry I managed to annoy you. However, a program needs to be >able to know if it can legally ask for more memory, right? And it >is "very fundamental to malloc philosophy", that malloc returns >NULL, when it can not get more memory. Which it apparently does >now on FreeBSD, but only if the program exceeds an artificial >datasize limit...
malloc() on FreeBSD returns NULL when it cannot allocate the memory asked for. If you have an example where this is not the case I would VERY much like to see it. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member p...@freebsd.org "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
