This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Call for testers: libiberty/physmem.c
- From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- To: mstump at apple dot com
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, mrs at apple dot com
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 11:07:32 -0500 (EST)
- Subject: Re: Call for testers: libiberty/physmem.c
- References: <A19DC714-4867-11D7-8124-003065A77310@apple.com>
> From: Mike Stump <mstump at apple dot com>
> On Monday, February 24, 2003, at 06:06 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> > That's really strange. I don't know how you ever got gcc to work on
> > that particular box.
> Not the box, the OS. Conclusion, it isn't actually enforced. Hum...
> Do we want to add code to gcc to ignore DATA on darwin?
> The reason is that all boxes, all users currently have this set
> artifically low, everyone else just ignores it, maybe gcc should as
> Even if I could get a change to the OS to set this better, for the next
> 1-6 years, users will have the `old' value.
> Another possibility would be for the compiler to bump it up by itself
> if it is too small, also icky, but that mirrors what we do with the
> stack currently.
If we do this, I'd prefer to do it only for Darwin. If someone set's
it intentionally, we should honor it if possible. Since Darwin
ignores the limit, resetting it doesn't hurt there.
What's the default hard limit shipped on Darwin? I.e. is it high
enough such that resetting rlim_cur to rlim_max fixes the issue?
Kaveh R. Ghazi ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu