From: "Dave Korn" <dave.korn@artimi.com>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
References: <20070122181727.GC27843@calimero.vinschen.de> 	 <1552.67.40.28.188.1169493973.squirrel@67.40.28.188> 	 <20070122202137.GC20665@calimero.vinschen.de> 	 <45B540FF.6060101@x-ray.at> 	 <20070123083753.GE27843@calimero.vinschen.de> 	 <45B62E0B.4080500@sh.cvut.cz> <45BBCF84.7070409@x-ray.at> 	 <20070128120735.GK27843@calimero.vinschen.de> 	 <4903.67.42.100.49.1170014267.squirrel@67.42.100.49> <5abc24640701300632h2c71438cg16d41386b5ec66af@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: Perl bug?
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:13:33 -0000
Message-ID: <040301c74491$f87878e0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; 	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <5abc24640701300632h2c71438cg16d41386b5ec66af@mail.gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On 30 January 2007 14:33, Andrew Louie wrote:

>>> Thanks for the info.  It's interesting to know.  What I still don't get,
>>> however, is the fact that the same statement does not waste memory on
>>> the x86 Linux Perl 5.8.5, but does on the x86 Cygwin Perl 5.8.7 and the
>>> x86_64 Linux 5.8.8.  So it has been introduced only in later versions?
>>> And why is it defended?  It doesn't seem to make sense, rather on the
>>> contrary.
> 
> This question is slightly offtopic, but I am interested in tracking
> how much memory my
> perl scripts use, can someone tell me how i could do that?
> 
> i tried:
> $strace script.pl
> strace: error creating process script.pl, (error 193)
> 


  strace isn't a shell, so it doesn't process shebang lines.  Try "strace perl
script.pl"


    cheers,
      DaveK
-- 
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/