From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 07:44:06 +0200 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: <20110405054406.GG2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> References: <946377fc99d55f66708553c16bb698de@coraid.com> <9739a352230f78fcb10629cdbc856dfc@ladd.quanstro.net> <224a2b9fd0b816400c0e5690336df9f9@brasstown.quanstro.net> <20110405044743.GE2000@fangle.proxima.alt.za> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Subject: Re: [9fans] Go Plan 9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: c99aeefa-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 01:11:35AM -0400, Russ Cox wrote: > > > All that Microsoft thinking (99.9%-thinking, if you find the other label > > offensive) to avoid adding a minute, one-off change to the Go runtime? > > It is not a minute, one-off change. I stand corrected. > I don't know how to fix it to cope with tiny virtual address spaces > like those in 9vx. It's not something I anticipated when I wrote the > allocator, and it's not something I really want to spend time on > for such a tiny fraction of use cases. We have limited time. > We don't even support OS X 10.5 anymore. > That is as good an answer as I could possibly ask for. There will be other eyes to look at it and hopefully supplement the lack of time. A quick, uneducated question: should 9vx be investigated instead? > The best answer might be to make USTKTOP 1GB. > Where? Thanks for replying. ++L