On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:46:12PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > On 16 January 2008 22:09, Diego Novillo wrote: > > > On 1/16/08 4:16 PM, Andrew Haley wrote: > > > >> Because it's not a bug? You're changing the code to silence a false > >> negative, which this is what we here in England call "putting the cart > >> before the horse." If we clean up all the memory regions on closedown > >> we'll be wasting CPU time. And for what? > > > > I agree. Freeing memory right before we exit is a waste of time. > > So, no gcc without an MMU and virtual memory platform ever again? Shame, it > used to run on Amigas.
You mean the Amiga didn't automatically free all process memory on termination, the way MS-DOS did (without an MMU and virtual memory platform)? (Unless, of course, you expressly asked for that not to happen, by calling "terminate and stay resident".)
