My point though was that you already build many end-of-life projects just so they can be used in the build, mold2 can now one of those rather than being built for its use in the final distro.

Is this not just verifying hashes? What further effort do they go to to prove a binary hasn't been modified?

> rust from llvm which we bootstrap from gcc which we bootstrap from tinycc which we bootstrap from M2Planet and so on back to 186 bytes of machine code.

While the effort is laudable, the fact that these are built from source is not enabling me to verify them. Rust, LLVM, gcc, tinycc, all the way back to that 186 seed are prohibitively large to verify.

I'm not even in a position to verify the delta to these projects over a single day. I'm having to trust _someone_, many someones.

When the kernel needs memory, it goes hunting for a page it can discard. But since that's transparent, the kernel can only discard a page if it knows it can get it back (after all, it's still got valid data on it, and maybe you'll try access it again later).

If there's swap, a page full of stale/unneeded data can be written out to swap. But if there's no swap, your page of "dangling data that you'll never use, but is still valid & referenced" can't be discarded; the kernel doesn't know you won't want it later, and it can't recreate the page if it throws it away.

So like sibling said, at that point it has to find other pages it can evict from memory, ones that _do_ have somewhere persistent they can be written out to. Pages loaded from binaries on disk satisfy that, so those will get dropped instead.

Maybe place + virus isn't inherently racist, but it's been politically charged & exploited; best to put the combination down.

If a report is improved and becomes actionable, that's great.

EDIT: to forestall further back and forth, I don't think there'd be any controversy if the problem statement said "common applications"

You're maybe thinking that we can build and deploy arbitrary "kinds" of application. Being able to "build and deploy arbitrary applications" would mean I could ask for any scale or complexity in my application.

And while you're right that the computation on the client end could be made lower (depending on the constraints of the game), you're now going to need to care about the hardware of the client beyond "can render a video stream". My (regretfully) smart TV has trouble rendering its own menus, it's not lifting a finger to do a game.

I believe their point was that this can't be done, since the "local simulation" is no longer running locally; it has to resolve & hide the latency _before_ it's transmitted to you, and you don't know what latency that frame will observe.