Re: Question on GCJ/Boehm Memory Utilization, Part II

[Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>]

Craig A. Vanderborgh writes:
 > 
 > The Boehm heap on our embedded application is now less than half the 
 > size it was before this find.  And the reason is obvious.  Now, the 
 > parsed token strings are usually 88 characters, instead of 12932.  This, 
 > as one would expect, greatly affects the behavior of the collector in 
 > the positive direction.  The reason I'm reporting this in so much detail 
 > is that I'm hoping I can help others who have this problem save a few 
 > years of their time.

TVM for sending this; it's good to know what was really going on.

 > Finally, people (like Ranjit) have complained about the "signature" line 
 > in my postings that contains several sentences of legal mumbo jumbo.  My 
 > intrepid IT department affixes these after I send email and I have no 
 > control that.  So I'm sorry, but there's nothing I can do about it.

Actually, there is.  As it says on the page Ranjit pointed to, "if
your company automatically adds something like this to outgoing mail,
and you can't convince them to stop, you might consider using a free
web-based e-mail account."

You might consider such a notice to be mumbo jumbo, but what matters
is what a lawyer thinks.

In any case, you've been politely requested not to include or
reference confidentiality notices on any GCC list.  Please respect
that.

Andrew.