386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

[G.David]

Hello again,

Has anybody noticed the problem compiling /sys/src/libtiff/tif_fax3.c on
a 386?  It seems 8c needs more than 16Mb of data space to build this one.

The real question, has anybody looked into increasing this limit?  (look
in /sys/src/9/pc/mem.h, SEGMEMSIZE, I think, set to 16.)

Thanks.

386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

[Nigel]

> 
> changing SEGMAPSIZE works fine.
> It incurs overhead allocated Segment structures
> so 16 seemed reasonable for a terminal. We really
> dont use PC's to compile.
> 
> 

Well, wouldn't you know. I was going to post all this yesterday, and 
as we get up earlier in the morning this side of the pond, I would 
have got there first. I fixed SEGMAPSIZE to 32, so must be half a 
woos (?sp).

What you have to watch is the linker! It gets to 14 meg doing 
9pcdisk; it gets to 20mb doing ghostscript, even without any useful 
printer drivers added in (which was what I was doing). Anyone else 
tried compiling in, say, HP deskjet support?

386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

[philw]

changing SEGMAPSIZE works fine.
It incurs overhead allocated Segment structures
so 16 seemed reasonable for a terminal. We really
dont use PC's to compile.

386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

[G.David]

>changing SEGMAPSIZE works fine.
>It incurs overhead allocated Segment structures
>so 16 seemed reasonable for a terminal.

I agree.

>                                        We really
>dont use PC's to compile.

I was compiling on my cpu server, which is just a bigger PC.

Thanks.

386 maximum segment size of 16Mb

[G.David]

I hate replying to my own mail, but I guess I wasn't finished... :-)

>The real question, has anybody looked into increasing this limit?  (look
>in /sys/src/9/pc/mem.h, SEGMEMSIZE, I think, set to 16.)
Make that                SEGMAPSIZE.

Also several of the machines have this in mem.h:

#define SEGMAPSIZE 64 /* 16 is for wooses */

This would imply that all is necessary is to change 16 to 64 in pc/mem.h,
but that would be too simple...

Thanks again.