Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:43:07 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> To: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Threaded 6.4 code compiled under 9.0 uses a lot more memory?.. Message-ID: <20121030194307.57e5c5a3@X220.ovitrap.com> In-Reply-To: <E46B717DCFC9273E8BEC5100@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> References: <A92CE63E6E6DB93B366F4A42@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk> <20121030182727.48f5e649@X220.ovitrap.com> <E46B717DCFC9273E8BEC5100@MightyAtom.tdx.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 11:59:46 +0000 Karl Pielorz <kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk> wrote: > > > --On 30 October 2012 18:27 +0700 Erich Dollansky > <erichfreebsdlist@ovitrap.com> wrote: > > > is it still the same compiler? > > Depends how you mean 'the same' - on the 6.4 system it shows: > > cc (GCC) 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305 > > And, on the 9.0-S it shows: > > cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD] > > So 'same' - but different versions. > did you check the default data sizes? > > I assume that it is a plain FreeBSD program without X. > > Yes. They are 'plain' programs - no X or anything. > > Now they've been running for an hour or so - they've gotten a little > larger 552M/154M and 703M/75M. > > If it's not harmful I can live with it - it was just a bit of a > surprise. And a reason to spend more money on memory. Knowing the real reason would be better. I can understand your surprise. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20121030194307.57e5c5a3>