comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive: archive » Memory needed for IDL/Linux?

Home » Public Forums » archive » Memory needed for IDL/Linux?

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? [message #8659 is a reply to message #8564]

Thu, 10 April 1997 00:00

thompson
Messages: 584
Registered: August 1991

Senior Member

"Mark Hadfield" <m.hadfield@niwa.cri.nz> writes:

> David Foster <foster@bial1.ucsd.edu> wrote in article
> <334AAE80.1E04@bial1.ucsd.edu>...
>> ...
>>
>> I thought this would be a good time to point out something that
>> really suprised me...IDL 4.0.1 on a Sun under Solaris 2.5 took
>> approximately 7MB of memory when started. IDL 5.0b takes 13MB!!
>> Inflation I guess.
>>
>> Dave

> I don't want to start a platform war or anything, but I've noticed that IDL
> on Windows NT doesn't use much memory when it starts up - around 3 MB for
> 5.0b. What on earth does IDL use all that memory for on Solaris?

I'm not sure about the situation via Windows NT versus Solaris, but I have
noticed this sort of behavior on simple routines that were compiled on
different platforms. It may have more to do with the platform's compiler than
it does with IDL.

Just my $0.02 worth,

Bill Thompson

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]

		Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: Liam Gumley on Thu, 03 April 1997 00:00
		Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: kak on Thu, 10 April 1997 00:00
		Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: thompson on Thu, 10 April 1997 00:00
		Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: Mark Hadfield on Wed, 09 April 1997 00:00
		Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: pit on Wed, 09 April 1997 00:00
		Re: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: David Foster on Tue, 08 April 1997 00:00
		RE: Memory needed for IDL/Linux? By: mallozzi on Fri, 04 April 1997 00:00

Previous Topic:	tiff_read files
Next Topic:	Re: Sun Symbol in Postscript

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 17:34:48 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00389 seconds