"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4880f9f3$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > No. If there was a leak, they wouldn't have reduced the memory footprint
by
> > 50%.

> Clearly the article *does* say they got rid of leaks and inefficiencies
> both. :-)

That's not clear to me. Note that "unreleased resources" ...etc need not be
leaks.

It just doesn't make sense to me to be able to claim a 50% reduction in
memory in a leaky application, unless they halved the leaks as well instead
of eliminating them <g>

> Some leaks just aren't big enough to worry about, tho.

True, typically in interactive applications where user interaction
limitation sets an upper bound on leak rate.

Post a reply to this message