From owner-freebsd-ports Tue Apr 16 13:38:41 1996 Return-Path: owner-ports Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA07070 for ports-outgoing; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 13:38:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from crab.xinside.com (crab.xinside.com [199.164.187.34]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id NAA07053 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 13:38:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from jdc@localhost) by crab.xinside.com (8.6.8/8.6.9) id OAA13685; Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:44:48 -0600 From: Jeremy Chatfield Message-Id: <199604162044.OAA13685@crab.xinside.com> Subject: Re: Xinside's Motif To: andreas@knobel.gun.de (Andreas Klemm) Date: Tue, 16 Apr 1996 14:44:47 +0100 (MDT) Cc: ports@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Andreas Klemm" at Apr 14, 96 12:09:20 pm Organization: X Inside Inc, 1801 Broadway, 17th Floor, Denver, CO 80202 Phone: +1 303 / 298-7478 Reply-To: jdc@xinside.com X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ports@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Andreas Klemm writes: > On Fri, 12 Apr 1996, Jeremy Chatfield wrote: > > > [...] On FreeBSD, with a variety of different mallocs, > > using the same source code, the MWM+VTS memory use totals around 45MB. > > We think that the problem is therefore external to our Motif, and may > > lie in the FreeBSD libs, or perhaps is some bizarre effect of the VM > > system. [...] > > Just one question. Will your port be based on FreeBSD-current or > the latest SNAP using Paul Henning Kamp's new malloc implementation ? > > Or do you use a FreeBSD-stable (2.1 + bugfixes) release ? We used 2.0, 2.0.5, 2.1-RELEASE and, I believe, 2.1-STABLE at various stages. The compiled version to be passed to Jordan as a release candidate was done on 2.1-RELEASE, according to the programmer. The Motif Validaqtion Test suite and some individual use has shown no Motif-related differences between all of these. Obviously, we'll claim 2.1-RELEASE and 2.1-STABLE as supported, eh? In general we regard it as unwise to port to a moving target like '-current'... '-current' as of when... It's pretty hard to support. "Hi, umm, you were running 2.2-current? OK, uhh, when did you grab that? Oh, I'm sorry we can't offer support, you grabbed that three days too late." ;-) Seriously, one of the reasons we like the *BSD's, despite their smaller market share, is that they are relatively more stable than the Linux distributions, who constantly shuffle files, installation methods, etc. It's the only reason we can afford to keep porting and maintaining them all, really. Please don't start this silly Linux-thing of running Beta libs, new kernel VM subsystems and then expecting a commercial vendor to have already grabbed the two-hour old code and run a complete validation test suite on it, have the release notes and all sales and support staff prepped with the asnwers about why it does/doesn't work and what the recovery plan is. It's not funny any more :-( The malloc is from the dynamic lib - whatever that is. When testing, we used our Server malloc, the GNU malloc, the older FreeBSD malloc and the new Poul-Henning Kamp malloc (which bears some similarities to our Server malloc and the new Linux malloc by H J Lu). I believe that the most recent testing was done with the P-HK malloc. Not that it made a blind bit of difference - the bloat that I discussed was pretty much identical with all. Cheers, JeremyC. -- Jeremy Chatfield +1(303)298-7478 FAX:+1(303)298-1406 email:jdc@xinside.com Commercial X Products - for more information please try: X Inside Inc, 1801 Broadway, 17th Floor, Denver, CO 80202 http://www.xinside.com/ majordomo@xinside.com ftp.xinside.com