From owner-cvs-include Tue Nov 15 09:19:18 1994 Return-Path: cvs-include-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id JAA09390 for cvs-include-outgoing; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:19:18 -0800 Received: from precipice.Shockwave.COM (precipice.shockwave.com [171.69.108.33]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA09383; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:19:15 -0800 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by precipice.Shockwave.COM (8.6.9/8.6.9) with SMTP id JAA02781; Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:18:10 -0800 Message-Id: <199411151718.JAA02781@precipice.Shockwave.COM> To: Nate Williams cc: CVS-commiters@freefall.cdrom.com, cvs-include@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include malloc.h Makefile In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 15 Nov 1994 10:10:15 MST." <199411151710.KAA09414@bsd.coe.montana.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 1994 09:18:10 -0800 From: Paul Traina Sender: cvs-include-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Oh, and sorry, that second question was supposed to be: Why do we want libmalloc.a at all... I claim feeblemindedness due to a bad case of the flu. From: Nate Williams Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/include malloc.h Makefile > Why would we want the system5 fatmalloc? Why do we want malloc() at all? Umm, do you have *any* idea what you are talking about? The libmalloc() supplied in 1.1.5 is Mark Moraes replacement malloc() that is *much* more frugal on memory use with only a slight performance hit. It was my intent to replace the version in 2.X with this version, but due to lack of time and testing on my part I didn't get time to do it. By adding it to 2.X we have it in public where it *may* get more testing than by sitting doing nothing. It is leaner/meaner than the stock version and not fat in the least bit. The second question seems rather silly to me. Gee, I don't know why we want malloc(), maybe since the ability to do dynamic memory in programs is generally considered a good feature? Nate