At Tue, 30 Mar 2010 02:48:28 +0100, Thomas Cataldo wrote:
Subject: Re: [patches] avoid unless exit()
>
> Relying on exit freeing up memory is pretty lazy as it prevents switching to
> threads.
That makes no sense at all -- all threads exit when exit() is called.
If use of threads c
On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:04 AM, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> A memory leak is memory consumption by a computer program where the
> program is unable to release memory it has acquired.
>
> On a code path that definitively always ends with exit(2), all memory
> is, by definition, released. Therefore t
At Sun, 28 Mar 2010 22:19:16 +0200, Gabor Gombas wrote:
Subject: Re: [patches] avoid unless exit()
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
>
> > on "return" paths, perhaps, but not exit() paths -- there is no leak on
> > exit() :-)
>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> on "return" paths, perhaps, but not exit() paths -- there is no leak on
> exit() :-)
The leak of course happens much before exit(). But memory profilers
report unfreed memory after the process exits, and there is definite
difference
At Fri, 26 Mar 2010 07:15:07 +0100, Gabor Gombas wrote:
Subject: Re: [patches] avoid unless exit()
>
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:30:42AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> >
> > indeed, and memory "frees" itself at exit time too, and calling free() a
> > whole l
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:30:42AM -0400, Greg A. Woods wrote:
> indeed, and memory "frees" itself at exit time too, and calling free() a
> whole lot of times on a sure path to exit() is a pedantic waste of time
> and code (and thus maintenance).
OTOH properly releasing memory on exit paths makes
At Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:56:26 +1100, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Subject: Re: [patches] avoid unless exit()
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:28:57AM +0100, Gonéri Le Bouder wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On AIX 5.3 (20CPU/96GB), the cost of process restart is very expensive.
>
