Memory profiling unreliable?

Hi,
it seems that memory profiling in bjam is not 100% reliable.
Here's what I 
did:

1. Create a simple Python script:

for i in range(0, 7000):
    print "obj target_%d : a.cpp ; " % i

2. Run it, redirecting output to "Jamroot"

3. Create empty file "a.cpp"

4. Run "bjam -n -d+10 > profile"

5. The profile has:

    0  214010000          0     0.000000 1056312754
1056312754 [TOTAL]

that's 1 056 312 754 bytes of memory. In practice, bjam
does not take more 
that 150 M of memory. What could be the problem?

- Volodya

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

On Friday 07 April 2006 18:39, Vladimir Prus wrote:

Any comments on the above? Anything I can do to debug this
issue?

> it seems that memory profiling in bjam is not 100%
reliable. Here's what I
> did:
>
> 1. Create a simple Python script:
>
> for i in range(0, 7000):
>     print "obj target_%d : a.cpp ; " % i
>
> 2. Run it, redirecting output to "Jamroot"
>
> 3. Create empty file "a.cpp"
>
> 4. Run "bjam -n -d+10 > profile"
>
> 5. The profile has:
>
>     0  214010000          0     0.000000 1056312754
1056312754 [TOTAL]
>
> that's 1 056 312 754 bytes of memory. In practice,
bjam does not take more
> that 150 M of memory. What could be the problem?
>
> - Volodya
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build

-- 
Vladimir Prus
http://vladimir_pru
s.blogspot.com
Boost.Build V2: http://boost.org/boost-
build2
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-build