Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!ogicse!oregon!jmeissen From: jmeissen@oregon.oacis.org ( Staff OACIS) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: Memory Protection! Message-ID: <588@oregon.oacis.org> Date: 22 Aug 90 16:13:37 GMT References: <1145.26bd4989@waikato.ac.nz> <1410050@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> Organization: Oregon Advanced Computing Institute (OACIS), Beaverton, OR Lines: 29 In article <1410050@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM> charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) writes: > >In Unix it is slower because the system can release all that memory >much faster than you can. Thats because it releases all of it at once >rather than releasing each separately malloc'ed portion. > : >The only reason I was concerned about this is because on the Amiga you >*must* deallocate all that RAM because the system does not implement >resource tracking. I mentioned to him that I intended to do this in >all my code. He told me it was a bad idea for code which would be >used on Unix. This is a ridiculous statement. It is never a bad idea for a program to track its own memory usage. I little extra work, perhaps. Given the speed of modern day Unix systems, a few extra milliseconds overhead to explicitly free memory when the program exits is not going to be significant, or even noticable. The other side of this is that a program that is written efficiently for the Amiga is generally never going to run on a Unix machine. There is a very restricted class of software (strictly file I/O, command-line based, no user interaction) that, when done right, looks the same on both machines. And even then, it's usually possible to take advantage of Amiga-specific features to make it smaller and faster. -- John Meissen .............................. Oregon Advanced Computing Institute jmeissen@oacis.org (Internet) | "That's the remarkable thing about life; ..!sequent!oacis!jmeissen (UUCP) | things are never so bad that they can't jmeissen (BIX) | get worse." - Calvin & Hobbes