X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date:	Wed, 20 Feb 2002 19:42:02 +0200
From:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender:	halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To:	Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Message-Id:	<2110-Wed20Feb2002194202+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer:	emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<3C73BBE2.9289C4F6@cyberoptics.com> (message from Eric Rudd on
	Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:08:19 -0600)
Subject:	Re: Malloc/free DJGPP code
References:	<10202200445 DOT AA15769 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu> <3C734B2D DOT F82A42FB AT yahoo DOT com> <3C73BBE2 DOT 9289C4F6 AT cyberoptics DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 09:08:19 -0600
> From: Eric Rudd <rudd AT cyberoptics DOT com>
> 
>    for (n=1; ; n++) {
>       data = realloc(data, n*sizeof(*data));
>       if (fscanf(infile, "%d", &data[n-1]) != 1) break;
>    }
> 
> (If blocks are allocated in sizes that are powers of two, there's no reason
> this last example can't be made to run fast -- though it's presently slow,

Is that with the CVS version or with the one in djdev203?  I believe
Mark made a change in CVS that speeds up realloc by a large factor.

> By these examples, I wish to encourage people to think broadly about the
> malloc optimization question.  In particular, I think we can expect some
> objections if any aspect of performance is significantly worsened, even
> though a new malloc performs better in some other respect.

I can only repeat that DJ's malloc test programs from the time v2.0
was developed are still available, and it's probably a good idea to
run them in case of any significant changes in malloc.  IIRC, those
programs did try to simulate different types of allocation requests.

- Raw text -