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: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:13:51 -0400 Message-ID: References: <838ttfnmev.fsf@gnu.org> <837f8znk8f.fsf@gnu.org> <83zilvm2ud.fsf@gnu.org> <83r377m0i8.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg36n6v5.fsf@gnu.org> <83shrl523p.fsf@gnu.org> <83eg354ux3.fsf@gnu.org> <4f0c2868-d408-a5c4-d5a8-90dae750eb33@dancol.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477405255 20184 195.159.176.226 (25 Oct 2016 14:20:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2016 14:20:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2.50 (gnu/linux) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Oct 25 16:20:51 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 1bz2aO-0000fR-1f for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:20:16 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54895 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2aQ-0005Un-5R for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:20:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45081) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2Vc-0002eY-5j for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:15:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2VY-0007Hx-AR for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:15:20 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=48918 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2VY-0007Hn-2M for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 10:15:16 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bz2VK-00016N-Cf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Oct 2016 16:15:02 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 7 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org Cancel-Lock: sha1:1+g0biI4TB5pVGNuI2AtZgi6BzI= 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:208765 Archived-At: > 64-bit address spaces are *huge*. What about just making every buffer > allocation 2GB long or so, marked PROT_NONE? Won't be sufficient for 3GB buffers, obviously ;-) Stefan