Hi there, On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Stephen Anderson wrote: > > So in the longer term, is there a reason the parent has to contain the > > interpreter at all? Can't it just do a system call when it needs one? > > Well, remember that the interpreter itself will remain shared > throughout, so there's no real disadvantage in having in the parent. I thought that if the parent was light it could replace its proxy, which would save a lot of messing about. > I think the thing to do here is fix the memory leaks 8-) Can't argue with that. 73, Ged.
- Re: horrible memory consumptio... Cliff Rayman
- Re: horrible memory consumptio... Vivek Khera
- Re: horrible memory consumptio... Doug MacEachern
- Re: Why does Apache do this braind... Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: Why does Apache do this br... Alan Burlison
- Re: Why does Apache do this braind... Jens-Uwe Mager
- RE: Why does Apache do this braindamaged dlclose/dlopen ... Gerald Richter
- RE: Why does Apache do this braindamaged dlclose/dlopen ... Stephen Anderson
- Re: Why does Apache do this braindamaged dlclose/dl... Gerald Richter
- RE: Why does Apache do this braindamaged dlclose/dlopen ... Stephen Anderson
- G.W. Haywood