2 replies to this topic

[friends]

well.... I'm not sure it is my AutoIT3 program bug or what.

I found out that it consumes 5,xxxK of memory usage. The
kinda simple.... have 4 tabs, date & time, and other inputs

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have created a program using AutoIT3 also, I tested to
compile the exactly same source code with v102 and v103,
however, when I ran it in Windows 2000 platform, the
memory usage as shown below :

v.102 => 2,3xxK
v.103 => 3,4xxK

that makes a big different..... why is that so ?

[Jon]

well.... I'm not sure it is my AutoIT3 program bug or what.

I found out that it consumes 5,xxxK of memory usage. The
kinda simple.... have 4 tabs, date & time, and other inputs

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I have created a program using AutoIT3 also, I tested to
compile the exactly same source code with v102 and v103,
however, when I ran it in Windows 2000 platform, the
memory usage as shown below :

     v.102   =>    2,3xxK
     v.103   =>    3,4xxK

that makes a big different..... why is that so ? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Looks normal. The number process manager shows is completely wrong anyhow - it only tends to show dynamically allocated memory and not static memory. A lot of the code has been improved (102 to 103) to use more dynamic memory when required and less static memory so although the number in process manager looks bigger it isn't actually - if anything the memory used is less in the new version (lots of improvements to variant memory use)

Edited by Jon, 26 September 2004 - 03:51 PM.

[friends]

Looks normal.  The number process manager shows is completely wrong anyhow - it only tends to show dynamically allocated memory and not static memory.  A lot of the code has been improved (102 to 103) to use more dynamic memory when required and less static memory so although the number in process manager looks bigger it isn't actually - if anything the memory used is less in the new version (lots of improvements to variant memory use)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

oh... ok. Thanks for the info.