From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 16 20:13:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8003E16A4CE for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:13:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw (www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw [140.138.145.166]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF0143D46 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:13:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from avatar@mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw) Received: by www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw (qmail, from userid 1000) id 05B704EFD8D; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:13:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw (qmail) with ESMTP id F37D34EFD89; Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:13:48 +0800 (CST) Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 11:13:48 +0800 (CST) From: Tai-hwa Liang To: Alex Vasylenko In-Reply-To: <408098A7.6090407@omut.org> Message-ID: <040417111109E.70184@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> References: <040416140449E.61901@www.mmlab.cse.yzu.edu.tw> <408098A7.6090407@omut.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 06:09:44 -0700 cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/bin/less weird memory consumption? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:13:54 -0000 On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Alex Vasylenko wrote: > Tai-hwa Liang wrote: > > Anyone tried to view a file contains *hugh* line with /usr/bin/less in > > -CURRENT? > > > > Sample file: > > > > dd if=/dev/zero bs=512 count=1500 | tr '\00' ' ' > test.txt > > > > On my -CURRENT box cvsup'd this morning, "/usr/bin/less text.txt" consumes > > about 511 MBytes of memory(see 'top'). -STABLE(less 358) and less 381 on > > Debian doesn't seem to have such problem, though. > > There's a memory leak. The latest less (382) doesn't have this problem. > Use attached patch. > That works like a charm! Any chance would this patch being committed into the tree?