Bugzilla

This result is a mixture of expected and unexpected.
- Expected: the change caused an additional 260 KiB (266,240 B) of memory to be allocated in each process. This memory is never touched, however, so it should not cause an increase in physical memory usage (a.k.a. RSS), which is the most important metric. The extra allocation should only consume address space, but PHC is only enabled on 64-bit platforms where address space is in abundant supply, so this is fine.
- Unexpected: this additional 260 KiB is allocated via `mmap`/`VirtualAlloc`, not with `malloc`, and there is no memory reporter for it, so I wouldn't have expected it to be included in `explicit`. This is puzzling to me.

This result is a mixture of expected and unexpected.
- Expected: the change caused an additional 260 KiB (266,240 B) of memory to be allocated in each process, and this matches fairly closely the sizes of the changes seen above. This memory is never touched, however, so it should not cause an increase in physical memory usage (a.k.a. RSS), which is the most important metric. The extra allocation should only consume address space, but PHC is only enabled on 64-bit platforms where address space is in abundant supply, so this is fine.
- Unexpected: this additional 260 KiB is allocated via `mmap`/`VirtualAlloc`, not with `malloc`, and there is no memory reporter for it, so I wouldn't have expected it to be included in `explicit`. This is puzzling to me.