Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA1754 ; Tue, 23 Feb 93 14:56:31 EST Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!paladin.american.edu!news.univie.ac.at!hp4at!mcsun!ieunet!dec4ie.ieunet.ie!jkh From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard) Subject: Re: A comment on 0.1 + 0.2.1 patchkit's stability In-Reply-To: burgess@hrd769.brooks.af.mil's message of 18 Feb 1993 08: 51:26 -0600 Message-ID: <JKH.93Feb20154722@whisker.lotus.ie> Sender: usenet@ieunet.ie (USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: whisker.lotus.ie Organization: Lotus Development Ireland References: <CGD.93Feb17150814@gaia.CS.Berkeley.EDU> <GENE.93Feb18171500@stark.stark.uucp> <1m07peINNrn1@hrd769.brooks.af.mil> Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1993 15:47:22 GMT Lines: 16 The particular problem with Emacs was recently discussed in *.emacs.* somewhere. As I recall from that interaction, Emacs does not release the memory although the buffer has been emptied. It seems to me that it was a 'feature' of Emacs so that it wouldn't have to go to the trouble of No, no "feature", simply the fact that malloc() doesn't *condense* memory free'd and sbrk(-<n>) to return memory to the system - it simply returns it to its freelist. Try compiling emacs with the new GNU malloc, you'll see a major difference (read in 2MB buffer, kill it, process size will actually grow and shrink). Jordan -- Jordan Hubbard Lotus Development Ireland jkh@whisker.lotus.ie 386bsd Patchkit Coordinator All-around nice dude. I do not speak for Lotus as that's not in my job description.