From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,325a055bed62c230
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Apex vs GNAT on solaris
Date: 1999/12/07
Message-ID: <82ho1n$asm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 557314637
References: <82hiuj$74o$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <82hk18$7up$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x26.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Dec 07 01:31:35 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-12-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <82hk18$7up$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  reason67@my-deja.com wrote:
> This produces alot of output. I graphed it and found that both
> Apex and GNAT did a good job of memory management on solaris

I would be surprised if both compilers did not simply use the
underlying storage allocation mechanism provided by Solaris.
Do you have any reason to think otherwise?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.