On Mon, 6 Nov 2000 16:55:06 -0500 (EST), Rick Scott wrote:
>> It also makes clear that the tests are not too precise,
>
>Correct. But as n->infinity a fairly accurate number should emerge.
Hopefully :-)
>> in fact if really a leak exists independent of the widget
>> creation number, you can not get it this way. And the other way
~~~~~~~~
>> round the claimed value is only an estimate result.
>
>The leak _has_ to be associated to the creation process, since this is the only
>thing the loop does. The first cycle, or so, may end up creating hash tables,
>caches, and such, so for small numbers of iterations all the memory allocated
>during the create is not returned by the destroy, but this may be by design.
>>
>> OTOH while trying to make a nice plot of the "leak-function" I again ran
>> into a famous crash on alpha[...]
>Could this be from the cast of a void * to an int for the comparison???
Sorry for mixing things. No, the crash is not related.
But it is actually surprising to me that brk() is an int ...
On any system this strange, should be at least size_t or "similar".
My explanation is that this interface might be older than "size_t" ?!
---
Alexander Mai
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
