On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 05:40:39AM -0600, ed...@pettijohn-web.com wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2020 3:06 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
>
> On 2020-11-11, ed...@pettijohn-web.com
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the quick reply. I'll stick with "s" for now and if its
> > unbearably slow I'll try others.
>
On Nov 12, 2020 3:06 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2020-11-11, ed...@pettijohn-web.com
wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply. I'll stick with "s" for now and if its
> unbearably slow I'll try others.
'S' not 's', they're case-sensitive (from the manual, "Unless
otherwise
noted uppe
On 2020-11-11, ed...@pettijohn-web.com wrote:
> Thanks for the quick reply. I'll stick with "s" for now and if its
> unbearably slow I'll try others.
'S' not 's', they're case-sensitive (from the manual, "Unless otherwise
noted uppercase means on, lowercase means off.")
On Nov 11, 2020 10:19 AM, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:09:19AM -0600, ed...@pettijohn-web.com
wrote:
> I'm trying to compile a program that is using a MALLOC_OPTIONS of
"A"
> which doesn't exist. Reading the manual all of the options look
good to
> me so what wou
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 10:09:19AM -0600, ed...@pettijohn-web.com wrote:
> I'm trying to compile a program that is using a MALLOC_OPTIONS of "A"
> which doesn't exist. Reading the manual all of the options look good to
> me so what would be the best? I'm going to go with "S" unless otherwise
> ins
I'm trying to compile a program that is using a MALLOC_OPTIONS of "A"
which doesn't exist. Reading the manual all of the options look good to
me so what would be the best? I'm going to go with "S" unless otherwise
instructed.
Thanks,
Edgar
Marc Espie:
> > 36m17.68s real
> > S 55m14.16s real
>
> I kind of wonder about similar data for full bulk builds.
That was my starting point, actually. I did a full bulk build with
S and was startled by the slowdown. I forgot the exact numbers,
but the relative difference was in the vici
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 04:27:05PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:08:39PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> > A couple of weeks ago, I ran a bunch of make builds (ncpu=4 amd64)
> > with different malloc() options enabled. I don't want to spawn a
>
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 02:08:39PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> A couple of weeks ago, I ran a bunch of make builds (ncpu=4 amd64)
> with different malloc() options enabled. I don't want to spawn a
> discussion, but for anybody who's curious, and for the archives,
>
A couple of weeks ago, I ran a bunch of make builds (ncpu=4 amd64)
with different malloc() options enabled. I don't want to spawn a
discussion, but for anybody who's curious, and for the archives,
here are the results:
36m17.68s real47m33.50s user26m49.97
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 02:17, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dave Feustel wrote:
> > On Tuesday 29 November 2005 19:19, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > > Note that you can also set the malloc options from within a program
> > > you are developing. I'
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dave Feustel wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 19:19, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > Note that you can also set the malloc options from within a program
> > you are developing. I've found this to be quite useful for adding
> > a "belt and suspe
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dave Feustel wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 19:19, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> > Note that you can also set the malloc options from within a program
> > you are developing. I've found this to be quite useful for adding
> > a "belt and suspe
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 19:19, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> Note that you can also set the malloc options from within a program
> you are developing. I've found this to be quite useful for adding
> a "belt and suspenders" mode during developement (the use after
>
Note that you can also set the malloc options from within a program
you are developing. I've found this to be quite useful for adding
a "belt and suspenders" mode during developement (the use after
free checks in particular).
- todd
On 11/29/05, Dave Feustel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I now have 3.8 installed. Very Nice, especially Firefox.
> CDROM Artwork is also nicely done.
> My question is re Malloc. When and how often does malloc
> check the flags in MALLOC_OPTIONS. Once at system init,
> on every malloc call, or other?
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Dave Feustel wrote:
> I now have 3.8 installed. Very Nice, especially Firefox.
> CDROM Artwork is also nicely done.
> My question is re Malloc. When and how often does malloc
> check the flags in MALLOC_OPTIONS. Once at system init,
> on every malloc call, or other? Can I se
I now have 3.8 installed. Very Nice, especially Firefox.
CDROM Artwork is also nicely done.
My question is re Malloc. When and how often does malloc
check the flags in MALLOC_OPTIONS. Once at system init,
on every malloc call, or other? Can I set the options,
run a program, and see if the new opt
18 matches
Mail list logo
