From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <03de507af8667968a40001488f67b58d@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2007 19:32:42 -0400
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
In-Reply-To: <ba26de3535fca23a1a0ef4a0cb2d130d@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b7c70d20-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > if one wishes to be remotely standards-compliant, sending a note on allocation
> > failure is not an option.  k&r 2nd ed. p. 252.
>
> i was discussing  something about it in practice, and not in a 1970's environment,
> where the approach didn't really work well even then.  the `recovery' that resulted was almost
> invariably equivalent to sysfatal.

sysfatal is a reasonable recovery strategy for many programs.  for many others,
there may be something useful to do, like allocate a smaller or fewer buffers.

- erik