On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:10 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 July 2013 22:43, Tudor Girba <tu...@tudorgirba.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :). >> >> First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other >> VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can >> run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we >> might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but >> if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. >> >> I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of >> the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that >> we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or >> do not have the resources to solve it right now. >> >> After all, we are here to change the world :). >> > > Yes, but this topic was raised multiple times already. Maybe we should > stop wasting time on it? > > All you need to do, to change the limit, go to > platforms/win32/vm/sqWin32Alloc.h > > And change this: > > #ifndef MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY > #define MAX_VIRTUAL_MEMORY 512*1024*1024 > #endif > > So, if you want more, build VM with any limit you see fit. > But there's a reason why in official VM its 512. Which reason? (It is a real question, I do not remember why it is so low) Esteban > >> Cheers, >> Doru > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
