From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jun 23 23:56:31 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id XAA19056
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 23:56:31 -0700
Received: from physics.su.oz.au (dawes@physics.su.OZ.AU [129.78.129.1])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with SMTP id XAA19037
          for <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 1995 23:56:17 -0700
Received: by physics.su.oz.au id AA02226
  (5.67b/IDA-1.4.4 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org); Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:56:13 +1000
From: David Dawes <dawes@physics.usyd.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199506240656.AA02226@physics.su.oz.au>
Subject: Re: Memory leak somewhere?
To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 1995 16:56:12 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <199506240634.IAA02830@uriah.heep.sax.de> from "J Wunsch" at Jun 24, 95 08:34:08 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1310      
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

>As David Dawes wrote:
>> 
>> I've noticed it growing fairly large too.  I've tried linking it with
>> -lgnumalloc (Linux uses GNU malloc by default), and that seems to help
>> (you can do this using the XFree86 LinkKit)
>
>Perhaps i should rather direct this to xfree86-beta:
>
>XFree86 used to link the binaries against -lgnumalloc by default in
>earlier versions.  NetBSD still does.  Is there any reason why it has
>been dropped for FreeBSD?  (I think gnumalloc falls under LGPL, so the
>Copyright issues aren't so hard here.)
>
>At least for the server, it seems to be a big deal.  I used to link
>mine against the GNU version, and now that i didn't do it for the
>first time, i'm seeing it growing rather large, too.

It was dropped because someone reported problems with it.  I've been
using it for the last few weeks without problems though, and I'm
planning to link with gnumalloc by default for FreeBSD in XFree86
3.1.2.

Regarding LGPL, there is no problem for the Xserver because we have
the LinkKit.

I don't know about clients, etc, or how LGPL fits in with dynamically
loaded libraries (I'd have expected dynamic linking to fulfill the
requirements of LGPL).  Anyway, this is an issue for those distributing
binaries.  We (XFree86) provide full source, so there isn't any problem
for us.

David