At Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:34:42 +0200,
Attila Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No effect, the process grows happily. I don't have a core dump.
Hmm, sorry, then I have no further idea of chasing the problem. A few
points that may help:
- can you show the diff you applied to bin/named/main.c when yo
On 04/03/08 19:46, JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote:
Hmm, this is odd in two points:
1. the "X" malloc option doesn't seem to work as expected. I expected
a call to malloc() should trigger an assertion failure (within the
malloc library) at a much earlier stage. Does it change if you try
the
Attila Nagy wrote:
On 2008.04.03. 15:21, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Greetings,
Attila Nagy wrote:
On 01/29/08 11:40, Attila Nagy wrote:
ps: I have an other problem. I've recently switched from a last year
6-STABLE to 7-STABLE and got pretty bad results on the same machine
with the same bind (9.4)
* JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉:
> Then the named process will eventually abort itself with a core dump
> due to malloc failure. Please show us the stack trace at that point.
> Hopefully it will reveal the malloc call that keeps consuming memory.
I've successfully used a backtrace()-instrumented malloc()
