Re: what about an special QA package priority?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 05/21/08 20:08, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 08:43:19AM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> On 05/20/08 23:11, Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
>>> In article <[🔎] 483389AD.email@example.com> you wrote:
>>>> even though it's "just" a command line utility. Who knows what
>>>> weird, unexpected side effects there might be from running such an
>>>> app within a tight bash loop.
>>> none*. And not cleaning up yourself also improves performance for short
>>> running apps.
>> How so?
> The cleanup is pointless and takes CPU time. Consider a program that
> does a lot of malloc()s which it uses until it exits. If it really
> wants to cleanup, it needs to free() every single one which means
> updating memory allocation structures for every single block of memory
> that gets freed.
> And all that for nothing, as the process's whole memory space gets
> unmapped on exit no matter its contents (including the state of the
> malloc implementation's allocation management structures).
I guess that working in the "enterprise" attunes me to the real
possibility that little apps which do one thing then terminate can
easily morph into big apps that run "forever". Cleaning up after
yourself just leaves fewer surprises for the guy who comes after you
and makes unanticipated modifications.
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
ESPN makes baseball players better.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----