Call for testers: libiberty/physmem.c

[Richard Earnshaw]

> 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 
> well?
> 
> :-(
> 
> 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.
> 
> And last, we could just leave everything as is, and tell users to put 
> ulimit -d unlimited in their .profile.
> 

We could add code to get gcc to raise the limit to the hard limit.  
There's already code in the kernel to do this for the core size, eg 
toplev.c:

#if defined(HAVE_SETRLIMIT)
  {
    struct rlimit rlim;
    if (getrlimit (RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim) != 0)
      fatal_io_error ("getting core file size maximum limit");
    rlim.rlim_cur = rlim.rlim_max;
    if (setrlimit (RLIMIT_CORE, &rlim) != 0)
      fatal_io_error ("setting core file size limit to maximum");
  }
#endif

R.