From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Mar 6 04:54:20 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id EAA18435 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:54:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id EAA18360 for ; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 04:53:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id NAA08274; Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:16 +0100 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199603061244.NAA08274@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: malloc upgrade. To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1996 13:44:15 +0100 (MET) Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199603052355.KAA20299@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Mar 6, 96 10:24:57 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Luigi Rizzo stands accused of saying: > > > > I have seen that the malloc in the Feb.96 snap is much less hungry > > than the one up until 2.1R. In order to get the full advantages, > > is it enough to rebuild libc.so.X.Y with the new malloc code, or > > there is more ? > > Just grab malloc.c out of -current and drop it into the relevant place > and rebuild libc. I've been using it for a while now with no adverse > side effects (other than it forcing me to be tidier with my malloc usage 8) Is there any reason why libc is built (by default) with -O rather than -O2 ? Luigi ==================================================================== Luigi Rizzo Dip. di Ingegneria dell'Informazione email: luigi@iet.unipi.it Universita' di Pisa tel: +39-50-568533 via Diotisalvi 2, 56126 PISA (Italy) fax: +39-50-568522 http://www.iet.unipi.it/~luigi/ ====================================================================