Date: Mon, 12 Jul 1999 23:56:29 +0100 From: Jon Ribbens <jon@oaktree.co.uk> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, tech-userlevel@netbsd.org, tech@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) Message-ID: <19990712235629.A2152@oaktree.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <37899FA7.4DC4E088@newsguy.com>; from Daniel C. Sobral on Mon, Jul 12, 1999 at 04:56:23PM %2B0900 References: <xzp7locthir.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <xzp1zektgp2.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <5laet8b2l8.fsf@assaris.sics.se> <xzpiu7wrx7q.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <5lemij265u.fsf@assaris.sics.se> <3788714D.4E666FFA@newsguy.com> <19990712002043.C7067@oaktree.co.uk> <3789373D.9B1811F3@newsguy.com> <19990712022424.A1390@oaktree.co.uk> <37899FA7.4DC4E088@newsguy.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> wrote: > That's *not* abomination. How about pre-allocating over 100 Mb for X > Free, for instance? What about it? If an application does not need 100MB, it should not malloc it. If it does need it, it should malloc it and know that it is available if the malloc succeeds. > Basically, if you don't have enough memory, you just don't have enough > memory. Yes, and the application should be told this via the standard documented interface for doing so, i.e. returning NULL from malloc(). > What FreeBSD does *reduces* the need for memory. If FreeBSD *did > not* do it, then you'd need much more memory. Why? Are there really such a lot of applications allocating vastly more memory than they actually use? Cheers Jon -- \/ Jon Ribbens / jon@oaktree.co.uk To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19990712235629.A2152>