From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 15 03:10:30 1995 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id DAA13694 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:10:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from rah.star-gate.com (rah.star-gate.com [204.188.121.18]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id DAA13687 for ; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:10:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost.v-site.net (localhost.v-site.net [127.0.0.1]) by rah.star-gate.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id DAA00741; Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:02:03 -0800 Message-Id: <199512151102.DAA00741@rah.star-gate.com> X-Authentication-Warning: rah.star-gate.com: Host localhost.v-site.net didn't use HELO protocol X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.2 7/18/95 To: Poul-Henning Kamp cc: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch), freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: growing X server processes In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 15 Dec 1995 11:44:56 +0100." <6827.819024296@critter.tfs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 15 Dec 1995 03:02:02 -0800 From: "Amancio Hasty Jr." Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >>> Poul-Henning Kamp said: > > Dumb question, > > > > If XFree86 is moving to their on efficient malloc shouldn't we be doing t he > > same ? 8) > > > > 1. Not if it is tuned to X11 in particular. > > 2. Not if it isn't better than what we have. Well, if Xfree86's malloc is inferior to what we have, trust me it will be one of the first things that I will take out as soon as I get my grubby hands on the sources. Most likely , others in different platforms will do the same. Now, what will be interesting to find out is, why does the XFree86 team need to write their malloc? >From my experience on X , is kind of hard to conceive that the X server /client behave that much different than any large complex system. This of course is a generalization. Amancio