On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: the test ). I think the seg fault may have revealed a new
: bug and is not related to the optimization I comitted, so I
: haven't backed out the commit. I am not 100% sure though,
: and I am testing this now.
:
: What test? If
Brian Feldman gr...@unixhelp.org writes:
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
My do lots of things that force the machine to page up the wazoo and
try to make it crash test :-)
So do you run Netscape, or do you run StarOffice? ;)
Just trying to compile Applix should be enough.
:Brian Feldman gr...@unixhelp.org writes:
: On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
: My do lots of things that force the machine to page up the wazoo and
: try to make it crash test :-)
: So do you run Netscape, or do you run StarOffice? ;)
:
:Just trying to compile Applix should be
On 4 Feb 1999, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Brian Feldman gr...@unixhelp.org writes:
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
My do lots of things that force the machine to page up the wazoo and
try to make it crash test :-)
So do you run Netscape, or do you run StarOffice? ;)
On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Matthew Dillon wrote:
I've comitted an optimization to vm_map_insert() after initial
tests seemed to indicate that it works. Basically it allows
OBJT_SWAP objects to be optimized in addition to OBJT_DEFAULT
objects already optimized in certain specific
: the test ). I think the seg fault may have revealed a new
: bug and is not related to the optimization I comitted, so I
: haven't backed out the commit. I am not 100% sure though,
: and I am testing this now.
:
: What test? If we had this exact test, it could be exploiting
I've comitted an optimization to vm_map_insert() after initial
tests seemed to indicate that it works. Basically it allows
OBJT_SWAP objects to be optimized in addition to OBJT_DEFAULT
objects already optimized in certain specific cases.
However, a followup test that I had
