Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 19:28:32 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
Message-Id: <1438-Fri25May2001192832+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEKCCDAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
Subject: Re: ehhanced realloc test program
References:  <CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIIEKCCDAA DOT tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
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
Precedence: bulk

> From: "Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 17:57:03 +0200
> 
> Even with a high increment count (256), not a single tick
> passed during the entire loop (while the old realloc's loop
> took 5610 ticks).
> 
> Pretty darn impressive. (this sentence's previous incarnation
> was presumably blocked by DJ's profanity filter :-) )
> 
> According to gprof, the speed culprit is __dj_movedata(),
> which makes sense, since the old realloc was essentially
> copying everything over.

Well, I guess if you enlarge the delta to a very large number, like
1MB, say, it will finally have to move the data, after it gets the
large chunk from sbrk.