That doesn't demonstrate a problem with Firefox not freeing tabs' memory. It could be an unrelated memory bug. Several Firefox extensions (most notably Adblock) have been known to cause memory problems in Firefox 1.5, for example. If you can figure out what's causing the problem, be sure to post what it is to MozillaZine, unless it's a well-known extension problem.
If it doesn't, you should head over to MozillaZine where they've been discussing the memory problem for weeks. No one can demonstrate that Firefox doesn't free memory when you close tabs, even using the new leak detection tool. It sounds like the second problem you describe is a zombie process, which is not a problem of freeing memory.
You are confusing your response to faith with your rabid Godless hippie behaviour. The difference is that your brain is suffering from all the methane your metabolizing when your head is up your ass.
Excellent demonstration of using the emotional processing centers of your brain! Quick, can you show us more?
You can show me all the brain scans you want. I know you're wrong. I just know it. Yeah! Go God!
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
That's really interesting, because over in that MozillaZine thread, no one can seem to demonstrate any problems. Maybe you should inform them of your findings.
Re:Leaks? I'll show you LEAKS!
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Adblock leaks memory like a sieve and everyone blames the memory leaks on Firefox. The latest nightly supposedly fixes the problem.
Re:Not much bigger or clunkier
on
IE7 Leaked
·
· Score: 1
You should run, not walk, to the Memory usage thread at MozillaZine. Nobody can seem to demonstrate any memory problems with Firefox. Show them how just yahoo.com consumes 180 MB of memory and finally convince those guys there's a problem!
There have been huge threads on MozillaZine asking for information about these supposed "problems" that hardly anyone seems to be experiencing. For some reason the users who experience them can't seem to give any useful information about what the problems are so they can be fixed. Perhaps you can head in there and shed some light on the situation, because Firefox runs beautifully for the vast majority of users. If you're having problems, describe in detail what they are, and they'll be fixed.
RTFA. The program that read the story didn't cause problems. It was the program with the gratuituous animations that had nothing to do with the story that distracted kids from the story and caused a drop in comprehension.
I know from experience at a company that makes a very successful literacy program that a computer reading a stories to children and providing exercises in phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension can help children's reading and writing skills immensely. At that company, competing "edutainment" programs were dismissed as inferior, and this study proves that the "entertainment" portion just distracts kids away from the education part of the activity.
I remember that memory problem. It was fixed earlier this year, and the fix is definately in Firefox 1.5. I was able to get Mozilla (with great difficultly, mind you) to use up a few dozen extra megabytes of RAM more than it should have. It never resulted in sucking up all the memory on your system as the comment above states. And it wasn't a leak -- when a leak occurs the only thing that can free the memory is exiting the application. With this bug, memory was released at some point later.
Notice also how even if you close the page on FF the memory is not freed up (memory leak)
Almost certainly the memory is freed up to be reused in Firefox, just not returned to the operating system. This is normal memory behavior and not a memory leak. If you kept doing a sequence of steps over and over, and memory kept climbing higher and higher without limit, that would indicate that memory is not being freed for internal reuse, and that would be a memory leak.
Re: Good code is self documenting...
on
How to Write Comments
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah, right. I recently debugged some code that did matrix calculations. It turns out that the matrix involved was always positive definite, and therefore the calculation could be done by performing Cholesky decomposition rather than explicitly taking the inverse of the matrix. Needless to say, there were no comments explaining any of this, and it took me hours to reconstruct the thoughts and derivation behind the original code.
Here's the original code:
L = Cholesky(cov0);
th1 = L.i() * th0;
lrt = (th1.t() * th1).Trace();
which is supposed to compute the same answer as the code:
lrt = (th0.t() * cov0.i() * th0).as_scalar();
I do agree that in general code should be self-documenting when possible, but sometimes you need a few lines of comments to explain a single line of code, or a few paragraphs of comments to explain a few lines of code. I added 17 lines of comments to that part of the program to explain 3 lines of code.
Action has been taken. Because that bug report was a hodgepodge of different problems, it was resolved as invalid. Please report new bugs, one per "test", listing the exact steps to reproduce and the actual and expected results. Alternatively, you can post details of your problem in MozillaZine and someone is able to reproduce the problems, they can file bugs for you.
Opera always identifies itself as Opera in the user agent string, even when spoofing as another user agent:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; en) Opera 9.0
No, there's no problem with the cache in Firefox. The instructions given on that page will make Firefox consume more memory on most computers, because it's telling Firefox to use 60 MB of RAM for the RAM cache. The default amount of memory Firefox uses depends on the physical RAM present, and is 32 MB on a computer with 1 GB of RAM.
If you see a problem with the cache, take the time to submit a proper bug report, not pass on advice that hurts instead of helps.
One problem is that it's often desirable for embedded applications to behave predictably. If you're using malloc, it can sometimes take more time than others, and the real-time behavior is not deterministic. Another problem is that embedded systems need to be very reliable over long periods of time with no user intervention. The smallest memory leak could lead to crashes or other erratic behavior.
When I was programming embedded systems and was lucky enough to have actual dynamic memory allocation, I reserved using it for allocating memory at initialization and the few cases where it would have been tricky to use static allocation and deterministic behavior was not important.
I'm somewhat puzzled by the premise of the book. I thought C/C++ was full of puzzlers, and that Java was supposed to fix all that.
Java is a quite a bit simpler than C++, but it certainly has its share of tricky corner cases and surprising features. I started reading through the first few chapters while browsing in a bookstore, and although I was quite proficient in Java years ago there were some puzzles that stumped me. It reminded me just how complicated parts of Java are. Anyone who claims to know Java well will probably be humbled just by browsing through this book for a few minutes.
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't demonstrate a problem with Firefox not freeing tabs' memory. It could be an unrelated memory bug. Several Firefox extensions (most notably Adblock) have been known to cause memory problems in Firefox 1.5, for example. If you can figure out what's causing the problem, be sure to post what it is to MozillaZine, unless it's a well-known extension problem.
If it doesn't, you should head over to MozillaZine where they've been discussing the memory problem for weeks. No one can demonstrate that Firefox doesn't free memory when you close tabs, even using the new leak detection tool. It sounds like the second problem you describe is a zombie process, which is not a problem of freeing memory.
I should have previewed my post more carefully. I actually heard the final Beta 2 will be out in April.
This is why to be scientifically credible, results of studies must be reproducible.
You can show me all the brain scans you want. I know you're wrong. I just know it. Yeah! Go God!
That's really interesting, because over in that MozillaZine thread, no one can seem to demonstrate any problems. Maybe you should inform them of your findings.
Adblock leaks memory like a sieve and everyone blames the memory leaks on Firefox. The latest nightly supposedly fixes the problem.
You should run, not walk, to the Memory usage thread at MozillaZine. Nobody can seem to demonstrate any memory problems with Firefox. Show them how just yahoo.com consumes 180 MB of memory and finally convince those guys there's a problem!
No, this feature came from the WHATWG, which is largely a joint work effort between Mozilla and Opera.
There have been huge threads on MozillaZine asking for information about these supposed "problems" that hardly anyone seems to be experiencing. For some reason the users who experience them can't seem to give any useful information about what the problems are so they can be fixed. Perhaps you can head in there and shed some light on the situation, because Firefox runs beautifully for the vast majority of users. If you're having problems, describe in detail what they are, and they'll be fixed.
Most of the "Firefox memory leak" problems are turning out to be poorly coded extensions, such as Adblock. Adblock's memory management problems were fixed just a few days ago. Try the tips on reducing memory usage, and you'll almost certainly find that the "memory leaks" disappear.
I know from experience at a company that makes a very successful literacy program that a computer reading a stories to children and providing exercises in phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension can help children's reading and writing skills immensely. At that company, competing "edutainment" programs were dismissed as inferior, and this study proves that the "entertainment" portion just distracts kids away from the education part of the activity.
I remember that memory problem. It was fixed earlier this year, and the fix is definately in Firefox 1.5. I was able to get Mozilla (with great difficultly, mind you) to use up a few dozen extra megabytes of RAM more than it should have. It never resulted in sucking up all the memory on your system as the comment above states. And it wasn't a leak -- when a leak occurs the only thing that can free the memory is exiting the application. With this bug, memory was released at some point later.
Here's the original code:
L = Cholesky(cov0);
th1 = L.i() * th0;
lrt = (th1.t() * th1).Trace();
which is supposed to compute the same answer as the code:
lrt = (th0.t() * cov0.i() * th0).as_scalar();
I do agree that in general code should be self-documenting when possible, but sometimes you need a few lines of comments to explain a single line of code, or a few paragraphs of comments to explain a few lines of code. I added 17 lines of comments to that part of the program to explain 3 lines of code.
Action has been taken. Because that bug report was a hodgepodge of different problems, it was resolved as invalid. Please report new bugs, one per "test", listing the exact steps to reproduce and the actual and expected results. Alternatively, you can post details of your problem in MozillaZine and someone is able to reproduce the problems, they can file bugs for you.
Opera always identifies itself as Opera in the user agent string, even when spoofing as another user agent:
Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; en) Opera 9.0
If you see a problem with the cache, take the time to submit a proper bug report, not pass on advice that hurts instead of helps.
When I was programming embedded systems and was lucky enough to have actual dynamic memory allocation, I reserved using it for allocating memory at initialization and the few cases where it would have been tricky to use static allocation and deterministic behavior was not important.