From owner-freebsd-hackers  Mon Jul 19 13:15:19 1999
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from houston.matchlogic.com (houston.matchlogic.com [205.216.147.127])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE5E914D0D
	for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from crandall@matchlogic.com)
Received: by houston.matchlogic.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
	id <3631HNPN>; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:01 -0600
Message-ID: <64003B21ECCAD11185C500805F31EC0302D75907@houston.matchlogic.com>
From: Charles Randall <crandall@matchlogic.com>
To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: RE: Overcommit and calloc()
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 14:14:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

From: Kelly Yancey [mailto:kbyanc@alcnet.com]
>I have another post on this list which begs the question: if memory given
>to us fro sbrk() is already zeroed, why zero it again if we don't have
>too.... if we make calloc() smarter, we could save come clock cycles.

Because the memory returned from malloc() might be from a previous
malloc()/free() and may be dirty.

Charles


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message