On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:43:32AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I just noticed xstatbar using "quite a lot" more memory than I was
> expecting. Does anyone fancy trying to track down the leak? It doesn't
> look like any flags are needed to trigger the leak, but using "-s 0"
> to avoid sleeping
On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:43:32AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> I just noticed xstatbar using "quite a lot" more memory than I was
> expecting. Does anyone fancy trying to track down the leak? It doesn't
> look like any flags are needed to trigger the leak, but using "-s 0"
> to avoid sleeping
On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 5:29 AM, Gregor Best wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 02:43:32AM +, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > I just noticed xstatbar using "quite a lot" more memory than I was
> > expecting. Does anyone fancy trying to track down the leak? It doesn't
> > look
I just noticed xstatbar using "quite a lot" more memory than I was
expecting. Does anyone fancy trying to track down the leak? It doesn't
look like any flags are needed to trigger the leak, but using "-s 0"
to avoid sleeping between updates makes it very easy to spot.