Problem with StringBuffer
gback at cs.utah.edu
Thu Apr 6 09:09:50 PDT 2000
> I updated to latest CVS-sources and yes, the problem went away. The
> memory footprint is now almost identical to the case where I just
> create a new StringBuffer every time. The memory usage is still bit
> high (kaffe seems to use almost twice as much memory as jdk11.8, but
> the application is bit memory hungry in any case), but at least it's
> not exponentially growing. Besides, it's nice that kaffe is
> faster than vanilla Blackdown JDK in this case.
Tatu, how did you measure the memory usage?
I don't doubt that it's worse than jdk1.1.8 (which: IBM's? Blackdown's?) -
but almost twice it shouldn't (have to) be.
Did you try the -mx switch? Note that kaffe tries to use up
to 64 MB by default. (The -mx switch may not work properly in kaffe,
More information about the kaffe