Mikhail Teterin <m...@misha.cisco.com> writes: > Sorry. I'm just repeating what Ladavac Marino wrote in > <55586e7391acd211b9730000c1100276179...@r-lmh-wi-100.corpnet.at>: > > LM: Please note that memory overcommit architectures are a > LM: rather common optimization; FreeBSD is one of them. They > LM: do, however, break the ISO/ANSI C conformance (strictly > LM: speaking). > > Since there was no immediate (nor later) rebuttal, I assumed, that > everyone quietly agreed...
Absolutely not. It is *definitely* okay for system conditions outside the realm of the C spec to effect the execution of "conforming" programs. Otherwise, having a system shutdown interrupt the program would be enough to make the system non-conforming. Heck, the *existence* of kill(1) and SIGKILL would be enough to make for a non-conforming C environment. The system running short on virtual memory (whether it be by having a user program touch memory it had previously allocated, or by having a new user log in, or a new sendmail daemon starting up) fits squarely into that category. How (and when) you assign backing store to virtual memory is a *very* interesting topic, but the ISO C compliance issue is a red herring, even to the most pointlessly pedantic language lawyers. Be well. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
