Problem with StringBuffer

Godmar Back gback at
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
> significantly
> 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, 

	- Godmar

More information about the kaffe mailing list