[Tim Peters]
...
Only obmalloc.c is changed in that branch, and you can get it directly from:
http://svn.python.org/view/python/branches/tim-obmalloc/Objects/obmalloc.c?rev=42760view=log
Heck no -- sorry, that pins it to an out-of-date revision. Use the shorter
Tim Peters wrote:
For simpler fun, run this silly little program, and look at memory
consumption at the prompts:
x = []
for i in xrange(100):
x.append([])
raw_input(full )
del x[:]
raw_input(empty )
For example, in a release build on WinXP, VM size is about 48MB at the
full
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 01:43:00AM -0600, Tim Peters wrote:
I'm optimistic, because the new test compares a quantity already being
tested by the macro, a second time against 0, and it's hard to get
cheaper than that. However, the new branch isn't predictable, so who
knows?
When compiling
[Tim Peters]
...
However, the new branch isn't predictable, so who knows?
[Nick Craig-Wood]
When compiling with gcc at least you could give the compiler a hint,
eg
http://kerneltrap.org/node/4705
By the new branch isn't predictable, I mean that there's apparently
no way to guess which
I spent most of my PyCon sprint time so far working on Evan Jones's
arena-freeing obmalloc patch:
http://www.python.org/sf/1123430
It's ready to test now! The work is on a branch:
svn+ssh://svn.python.org/python/branches/tim-obmalloc
Only obmalloc.c is changed in that branch, and you
