From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:37:04 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83r377m0i8.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg36n6v5.fsf@gnu.org> <83shrl523p.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg354ux3.fsf@gnu.org> <4f0c2868-d408-a5c4-d5a8-90dae750eb33@dancol.org> <878tt9ggdk.fsf@ritchie.wxcvbn.org> <83k2cssypt.fsf@gnu.org> <6350b2df-fde9-e716-d279-9f29438f8ee5@dancol.org> <83d1ikswsf.fsf@gnu.org> <7ab47b94-c662-1351-0dd3-ed5269842438@dancol.org> <83bmy4stax.fsf@gnu.org> <83a8dosls8.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477662063 1644 195.159.176.226 (28 Oct 2016 13:41:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2016 13:41:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Oct 28 15:40:59 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c07Or-00074c-D4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:40:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49195 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07Ot-0006p6-Nn for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:51 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53842) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07ON-0006oz-PO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07OK-0005q3-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:19 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=34870 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c07OK-0005pd-8P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 09:40:16 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c07O7-0001kU-1v for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 28 Oct 2016 15:40:03 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 9 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:WSlVQjtmGlP1NQVKlxp1i39KpJs= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208944 Archived-At: > But if committing more pages from the reserved range is not guaranteed > to succeed, I cannot rely on getting that contiguous range of > addresses, can I? It should only fail in those cases where a new mmap (or malloc) would also fail. Stefan