From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Dec 15 03:39:54 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA15707
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:39:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from critter.tfs.com ([140.145.230.252])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA15692
          for <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:39:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost.tfs.com (localhost.tfs.com [127.0.0.1]) by critter.tfs.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id MAA06915; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:33:34 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: critter.tfs.com: Host localhost.tfs.com didn't use HELO protocol
To: "Amancio Hasty Jr." <hasty@rah.star-gate.com>
cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch),
        freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers)
Subject: Re: growing X server processes 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:02:02 PST."
             <199512151102.DAA00741@rah.star-gate.com> 
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 12:33:34 +0100
Message-ID: <6913.819027214@critter.tfs.com>
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.tfs.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> Now, what will be interesting to find out is, why does the XFree86 team 
> need to write their malloc?
for the same reason(s) FreeBSD did.

> >From my experience on X , is kind of hard to conceive that the X server /cli
ent
> behave that much different than any large complex system. This of course
> is a generalization.
The point is exactly that they have a specific case to optimize against.

--
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Future will arrive by its own means, progress not so.