Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:18:10 -0800 From: Paul Traina <pst@shockwave.com> To: Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> Cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-include@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include malloc.h Makefile Message-ID: <199411151718.JAA02781@precipice.Shockwave.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:10:15 MST." <199411151710.KAA09414@bsd.coe.montana.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Oh, and sorry, that second question was supposed to be: Why do we want libmalloc.a at all... I claim feeblemindedness due to a bad case of the flu. From: Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include malloc.h Makefile > Why would we want the system5 fatmalloc? Why do we want malloc() at all? Umm, do you have *any* idea what you are talking about? The libmalloc() supplied in 1.1.5 is Mark Moraes replacement malloc() that is *much* more frugal on memory use with only a slight performance hit. It was my intent to replace the version in 2.X with this version, but due to lack of time and testing on my part I didn't get time to do it. By adding it to 2.X we have it in public where it *may* get more testing than by sitting doing nothing. It is leaner/meaner than the stock version and not fat in the least bit. The second question seems rather silly to me. Gee, I don't know why we want malloc(), maybe since the ability to do dynamic memory in programs is generally considered a good feature? Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199411151718.JAA02781>