David Champion wrote: [snip]
Your comment has been the most enlightning so far on memory allocation :)
All this is just to throw in with that camp that says these are no indications of memory leaks. Now back to your regularly-scheduled virus discussion.
Okay, now suppose that clamd works in a "complicated" way, so that
"The effect is that you don't *always* get back what you free() when you free()",
Do you have any suggestion as to how to get back the free()d memory?
Will (borrowing Apache's way) using a prefork-kind of daemon, with limited lifetime
for each child, be better (in sense of memory management) than the current
thread implementation? Or perhaps limiting the lifetime of each thread sufficient?
Regards,
Fajar
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: thawte's Crypto Challenge Vl Crack the code and win a Sony DCRHC40 MiniDV Digital Handycam Camcorder. More prizes in the weekly Lunch Hour Challenge. Sign up NOW http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;10740251;10262165;m _______________________________________________ Clamav-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/clamav-users
