Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Ubuntu 10.04 Is Hit By Major X.Org Memory Leak

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    988

    Default

    Good thing they found out about this before release and are going to fix it. Of course that doesn't stop the Ubuntu haters from taking cheap shots at Ubuntu

  2. #12

    Default

    Is this issue isolated to Ubuntu's hacked together hybrid of xorg-server 1.7.x and 1.8.x or does it affect upstream's sources too?

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kUrb1a View Post
    This might not be related to anything but Intel hardware but we can all see how well Ubuntu is crafted.
    Probably far better then mentioned OSes.

    I hope they will fix this issue before releasing -rc, because I want to switch to Kubuntu and stick with it.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    548

    Default

    You know, all this can be avoided with the use of smart pointers. There are, certainly, situations where you absolutely can't afford the small overhead of a light object such as a smart pointer, but all in all naked pointers should be only needed when absolutely necessary IMHO.

    Also, using smart pointers allow you in many cases to avoid having to make deep copies of objects, so you can get an overall speedup in your code when using them.

    But of course, we'll have the usual avalanche of bitching against U
    buntu, Canonical and what not.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bulletxt View Post
    I have a feeling that Ubuntu 10.04 is like a toy made of pieces of Lego.
    Yeah, just like every other Linux distro.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mendieta View Post
    You know, all this can be avoided with the use of smart pointers. There are, certainly, situations where you absolutely can't afford the small overhead of a light object such as a smart pointer, but all in all naked pointers should be only needed when absolutely necessary IMHO.

    Also, using smart pointers allow you in many cases to avoid having to make deep copies of objects, so you can get an overall speedup in your code when using them.

    But of course, we'll have the usual avalanche of bitching against U
    buntu, Canonical and what not.
    And how do you propose using smart pointers in freaking C?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    Is this issue isolated to Ubuntu's hacked together hybrid of xorg-server 1.7.x and 1.8.x or does it affect upstream's sources too?
    Looks like an upstream bug: see here and here.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    548

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlackStar View Post
    And how do you propose using smart pointers in freaking C?
    Wait, you didn't let me finish with my proposal, LOL

    Incidentally, I had the chance of browsing some KDE code for a bug fix, and it's all naked pointers, even though Qt provides some shared pointers. Oh well.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Probably far better then mentioned OSes.

    I hope they will fix this issue before releasing -rc, because I want to switch to Kubuntu and stick with it.
    I like Kubuntu but I wouldn't count on this too much...
    They were releasing this distribution versions (older *buntus) in history with known bugs in kernel or Xorg before because of the strict release dates.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by curaga View Post
    These GLX 1.4 changes were from 1.8.0. Why backport them in the first place to a LTS?
    Good question. The theory, at least, was that going all the way to 1.8 was risky, but staying on pure 1.7 would leave them something that wouldn't be sufficient over the lifespan of an LTS.

    In practice, they now have a hybrid mess of the two, probably filled with bugs, and which they'll have to support without independently of upstream Xorg. And for some reason, this seemed preferable to just dropping in 1.8, and fixing any problems that resulted...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •