Subject: Re: is this a linux users' FUD spread?
To: Timo Schoeler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: matthew sporleder <email@example.com>
Date: 07/05/2006 16:27:49
On 7/5/06, Timo Schoeler <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> i just came across reading this
> and am curious now what developers would like to say in this case... is
> it just FUD?
Well, I'm certainly no expert on low-level stuff like this, but if you look at:
You will see that NetBSD's malloc.c only mentions "unsigned"
/* Set when initialization has been done */
static unsigned malloc_started;
/* Number of free pages we cache */
static unsigned malloc_cache = 16;
/* How many slots in the page directory */
static unsigned malloc_ninfo;
And none of those are unsigned on size_t. Darwin's malloc.c has
-many- more references to the word "unsigned". Also, it's plain to
see that the malloc.c's from the two operating systems are -very-
As such, I would go with FUD, which can also be gleaned from the tone
of the article referenced. Example:
"I can't believe they fucked it up
A while ago I spend some time in the osx heap allocator. Man there is
so much crap in there, unbelieable. "