Re: Setting memory allocators for library functions.

[Peter Seebach]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Dag-Erling Smorgrav writes:
>It doesn't (and I'm very close to using expletives here). On the
>contrary, it tries to always satisfy the application's requests and
>hopes for the best.

Yes, but it could provide a stronger guarantee than it does.

>It's quite possible that memory isn't available
>when you call malloc(), but becomes available before you actually get
>to dirty the pages that were allocated.

Sure.  And for many applications, that's a win.  For some, though, the
*CHANCE* of overcommitting killing the process is a serious problem, and
the application would be better off if it could warn the user that
insufficient memory is available, and perhaps more should be provided.

It would be a useful option.  I'm not saying it's the *only* useful option,
or even always the best.  However, it should be trivial enough to provide
this option, and it *does* serve a useful purpose.

-s

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