forwarded message from Henry Cejtin

[Stephen Weeks]

Received: from maguro.epr.com ([198.3.162.27]) by exchange.epr.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2650.21)
	id TV5JQK9C; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:17:28 -0700
Received: from magrathea.epr.com (firewall-user@magrathea.epr.com [198.3.160.1])
	by maguro.epr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA00180
	for <sweeks@intertrust.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:20:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from uucp@localhost) by magrathea.epr.com (8.9.3/8.7.3) id QAA19020 for <sweeks@intertrust.com>; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 16:20:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nodnsquery(199.249.165.245) by magrathea.epr.com via smap (V5.5)
	id xma018746; Mon, 2 Oct 00 16:19:45 -0700
Received: (from henry@localhost)
	by syzygy.clairv.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id SAA21020
	for sweeks@intertrust.com; Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:19:44 -0500
Message-Id: <200010022319.SAA21020@syzygy.clairv.com>
From: Henry Cejtin <henry@sourcelight.com>
To: sweeks@intertrust.com
Subject: Re: bug in limit checks and threads
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:19:44 -0500

I would guess that the time overhead of changing
	if (less than ??? space)
		do_GC(...);
to
	while (less than ??? space)
		do_GC(...);
should be quite minimal, so I would probably vote for that.