+1, yes, definitely!
On Friday, May 1, 2015 at 8:28:17 PM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Maybe we should include bytes freed as well. > > On May 1, 2015, at 8:15 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 2, 2015 at 2:45:16 AM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote: >> >> Yes, that makes much more sense! So it's really "byte allocations" rather >> than "bytes allocated". Thanks. > > > Its bytes allocated not bytes in use. > > bytes in use = bytes allocated - bytes freed > >
