Subject: Re: make eats (too much?) memory
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 02/24/2004 19:15:51
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 12:48:45AM -0500, Sean Davis wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2004 at 10:44:50PM -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 04:06:39PM +0100, Klaus Heinz wrote:
> > > Is this expected behaviour of "make"? Why can I continue a build of libc
> > > after "make" reached 32MB of data and aborted? Does it keep state data
> > > about the already built files or might there be a memory leak?
> > Wasn't make changed some years ago to never free memory? This made
> > it run faster I think. Unless I'm wrong.
> That sounds like an absurd thing to do (never free memory), whether it makes
> it faster or not...
It makes some sense in that most makes either don't run for very long
or don't have very many targets to build. Recursive makes get their
own address spaces, and when any make ends the memory it had allocated
It might be useful to have this behavior in make controlled by a
define that is set on smaller/older platforms.
That is, if I'm not wrong in my original guess.
Kevin P. Neal http://www.pobox.com/~kpn/
'Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate.
It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service"
to the community.' -- RFC 1591, page 4: March 1994