On 4/4/07, Yakov Lerner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/4/07, Max Dyckhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I do have 'hidden' set, because I like to keep things around. >> :ls! shows that I currently have about 550 buffers open. we do >> have a large code base! > > Then get another 1-2 GB of RAM. It's not called "memory leak" > when program allocates memory according to its functionality. > > Yakov
I know perfectly well what a memory leak is; it isn't allocating memory according to its functionality, it is forgetting to free it according to its requirements. I was just debating whether allocation of an extra 100Kb was necessary if I created a few new splits for an existing buffer and then closed them. If someone provided the answer "this memory is kept around for reason X", then it wouldn't be a memory leak. I currently have 4GB of RAM in this machine, but that can get eaten up surprisingly fast when you're doing what I do. I don't think 32-bit XP can address any more than that, can it? Max
