From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ba26de3535fca23a1a0ef4a0cb2d130d@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] plan 9 overcommits memory?
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Tue,  4 Sep 2007 16:07:32 +0100
In-Reply-To: <2aafa5b5837f18127f5241514930f964@coraid.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: b79a5f6e-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.