On 11 April 2010 12:42, David Seikel <[email protected]> wrote:
> If the everything module can be stripped down to the size of exebuf with
> the same functionality, then that's a win for memory constrained
> systems.  That leaves the option open to add more everything bits if
> wanted and they fit and avoids duplicated functionality.
>
> When I compile the second life viewer, apparently my 2 GB system IS a
> memory constrained system.  lol
>

I ran a few tests on this this morning, and I found a very negligible
difference in memory usage. Its only recently been able to load
individual plugins as modules, so running the basic module +
applications was exactly like running Exebuf. Id like to get a 2nd
opinion on memory usage comparisons between the 2 though.

Toma


> --
> A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants
> coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.

^ Awesome.

>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
> Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
> proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
> See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
> _______________________________________________
> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel&#174; Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
enlightenment-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel

Reply via email to