On 02/25/2012 11:14 PM, Rogier Wolff wrote: > Many modern operating systems do "lazy" allocation.
Sure, that's an old trick. But this has its own problems: it can mean a process *thinks* it has memory allocated, but it doesn't *really* have the memory; which means when it tries to actually *use* its memory it can get killed. This is not a direction we want 'sort' to head. > a slight change in the codebase might be in order > for "unknown sort size". Sorry, I didn't follow the rest of that comment. Perhaps you could suggest a patch? That might explain things better. "diff -u" format is typically best.
