On Sun, Feb 03, 2013 at 11:15:12AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Peter Bex scripsit: > > > Speaking of which, I wondered about this before: why do we even _have_ a > > maximum heap size? This is arbitrary and awkward. For instance, on my > > trusty old G4 iBook, 2G was way more than I actually had (512 MB), while > > at work and on my new laptop it's a relatively small fraction of my total > > memory. > > On a 32-bit system, you can't by any means get more than a 4G memory for > any single process, short of heroic measures in the kernel that allow > you to assign the same virtual addresses to different physical addresses > at the same time. OS considerations limit this figure to 1G to 3G.
Well, sure. But then "malloc" would just fail, wouldn't it? The Chicken heap doesn't need to be limited from within Chicken; the OS will do that for us more reliably. Cheers, Peter -- http://sjamaan.ath.cx _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
