To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=68890
User mhu changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
CC|'' |'kr'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Aug 30 04:48:32 -0700
2006 -------
Hi Michael,
Hmmm, while I'm indeed the only maintainer of the osl/thread.c implementation, I
guess KR should review this proposed change first.
Also, I'm not entirely sure that what you see in (writeable private) memory
reduction is virtual (unmapped) or real (mapped) memory; i.e. my question would
be whether each thread stack actually gets mapped up to it's maximum grow size
right from the start (I'd suspect / hope that it gets paged in on demand). So,
possibly there's not so much real savings.
But, as said, I leave the initial review to KR.
mhu->kr: Can you please have a look at this?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
