From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9540 invoked from network); 16 Dec 1999 18:02:33 -0000 Received: from ns2.primenet.com.au (HELO primenet.com.au) (?BZuYCbDXgPT5ZKNZVkl1uMFtrpCwSyts?@203.24.36.3) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Dec 1999 18:02:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 1818 invoked from network); 16 Dec 1999 18:02:24 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns2.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 16 Dec 1999 18:02:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 9405 invoked by alias); 16 Dec 1999 18:01:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 9089 Received: (qmail 9398 invoked from network); 16 Dec 1999 18:01:09 -0000 Sender: tim@ftlsol.com To: Sven Wischnowsky Cc: zsh-workers@sunsite.auc.dk Subject: Re: zsh and memory References: <199912161039.LAA13865@beta.informatik.hu-berlin.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.108) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII From: Timothy Writer Date: 16 Dec 1999 13:01:02 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sven Wischnowsky's message of "Thu, 16 Dec 1999 11:39:48 +0100 (MET)" Message-ID: X-Mailer: Gnus v5.6.45/XEmacs 21.1 - "20 Minutes to Nikko" Sven Wischnowsky writes: > I wrote: > > > I'm really tempted to allocate heaps using mmap() > > (anonymous) to get them out of the way of the zalloc() allocator. I > > small test showed that with this I only get 39KB of free memory after > > the completion test, which is really not too bad. I don't have a patch > > for that yet, though. > > ... and now I don't think I'll ever write one: neither Solaris nor > Linux seem to have MAP_ANONYMOUS. Sniff. Hmmm ... how are you calling mmap exactly? I've definitely used MAP_ANONYMOUS on Linux (as far back as kernel 1.3) and I think I've used it on Solaris too. Linux doesn't have shared anonymous mappings, i.e. you have to use MAP_PRIVATE with MAP_ANONYMOUS. -- tim writer starnix inc. tollfree: 1-87-pro-linux brampton, ontario, canada http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products