Re: port-mac68k/51923: /usr/libexec/cc1: Cannot allocate memory

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>]

The following reply was made to PR port-mac68k/51923; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%bec.de@localhost>
To: gnats-bugs%NetBSD.org@localhost
Cc: port-mac68k-maintainer%netbsd.org@localhost, gnats-admin%netbsd.org@localhost,
	netbsd-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost, bbraun%synack.net@localhost
Subject: Re: port-mac68k/51923: /usr/libexec/cc1: Cannot allocate memory
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:17:18 +0100

 On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 02:55:01PM +0000, Michael van Elst wrote:
 > The following reply was made to PR port-mac68k/51923; it has been noted by GNATS.
 > 
 > From: mlelstv%serpens.de@localhost (Michael van Elst)
 > To: gnats-bugs%netbsd.org@localhost
 > Cc: 
 > Subject: Re: port-mac68k/51923: /usr/libexec/cc1: Cannot allocate memory
 > Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:52:07 +0000 (UTC)
 > 
 >  joerg%bec.de@localhost (Joerg Sonnenberger) writes:
 >  
 >  >Are there any inherent platform reasons for not using the same limits as
 >  >i386 by default? E.g. 256MB for MAXTSIZ, 3GB for data size and 64MB for
 >  >stack?
 >  
 >  Wouldn't that be silly? 256MB text with 128MB total address space?
 
 Total address space or maximum physical memory? That's why I asked
 whether there are platforms reasons for very tight limits.
 
 Joerg