Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:03:16 -0500
From:      rich@id.slip.bcm.tmc.edu (Rich Murphey)
To:        hasty@rah.star-gate.com, j@uriah.heep.sax.de
Cc:        dawes@physics.usyd.edu.au, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Memory leak somewhere?
Message-ID:  <199506242103.QAA02169@id.slip.bcm.tmc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199506241732.KAA19358@rah.star-gate.com> (message from Amancio Hasty on Sat, 24 Jun 1995 10:32:05 -0700)

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
|From: Amancio Hasty <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
|I switched to gnumalloc on XF86_S3 and I have not seen any problems.
|It is kind of early to report bugs. So far xman is not hugging the
|X server's memory, at one point xman managed to make the X server
|grow to 20MB over here with libc's malloc. My guess is that there
|is a memory leak on the X server. Given that xman exasperates the
|problem it may be worth a try to use re-link the X server with
|mprof and running xman againt the X server.
|
|From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de>
|Hmm, except for XFree86 3.1.1, i've always modified my xf86site.def to
|use -lgmalloc (i simply forgot it when re-vamping the last official
|version from scratch).  I've never noticed any problems.  (And due to
|the modification of the site.def, this has been inherited by all
|clients, too.)

I agree with you both. -- It gnumalloc works for the server
'in my hands' as well.

Yet the beta testers did report problems.  At the moment
it's far easier for me to create binaries for beta testing.
So unless there are objections I think I'll use gnumalloc in
the next couple rounds of beta tests and see if it can pass
the beta tests.  Rich



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199506242103.QAA02169>