From: Christopher Croughton Message-Id: <97Nov29.183752gmt+0100.17026@internet01.amc.de> Subject: Re: Alternate malloc? To: dj AT delorie DOT com, djgpp AT delorie DOT com Date: Sat, 29 Nov 1997 17:36:07 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk DJ Delorie wrote: > In light of performance, efficiency, and copyright issues with DJGPP's > current malloc, I explored other implementations of malloc that we > might use instead. Were these other ones (your 'test*') ones which you invented, or other available ones which you've kept anonymous so we're not prejudiced? If they're ones you invented, how do these compare to the other ones people have talked about on the list/newsgroup? If I'm reading your charts right, it seems that the DJGPP/BSD one is about the fastest but also wastes half the space (although how much it really wastes depends on the paging boundaries; that's not easy to calculate). It seems to me that 'test6' is a fairly good compromise. Can someone do them on an ix86 platform? I don't know what a "R5000 SGI" is but it doesn't sound like a PC to me . This could make a difference both to the memory overhead and to the speed; the latter will also be influenced by the compiler switches (which could optimise some algorithms better than others). Thanks for starting off the discussion... Chris C