|
From: Jeremy F. <je...@go...> - 2005-02-25 05:24:17
|
Nicholas Nethercote wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> ==18124== 128+4014 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss
>> record 461 of 483
>
>
> It's good that the new reported sizes are more accurate, but I predict
> one thousand users will immediately scream "what does 128+4014 mean?"
> It's not at all obvious. Is there any simpler/more intuitive way to
> summarise, perhaps by changing the wording of the sentence?
I already changed it to
4142 (128+4014) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 461 of 483
I suppose that could be
4142 (128 direct, 4014 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 461 of 483
J
|