From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a3d8f244f00be51b2b9f80895be0be93@quanstro.net>
References: <dd6fe68a0909011622l20f9e6abv2f3ebf75254b3e1e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a3d8f244f00be51b2b9f80895be0be93@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue,  1 Sep 2009 16:59:09 -0700
Message-ID: <dd6fe68a0909011659r1700772fh291c6447ecb9569c@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] lowest valid stack address
From: Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5dfa4a5c-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> aside: from the overcommit vm discussion.
> in http://9fans.net/archive/2000/06/634 rob
> says that plan 9 doesn't overcommit vm.
> what's the history here?

i think plan 9 does overcommit vm and did then too.

russ