On Saturday 16 March 2013, Jeff Trawick wrote: > This would be good to resolve in 1.5.2. > > Has anyone else evaluated this? I'm suspicious of the use of a > global pool in the reporter's patch vs. just using malloc() > directly. I guess the reason for using the pool is that the > allocator may have suitable buffers lying around, but you need one > for the pool and one for the structure instead of just getting one > from malloc(). I haven't tried any performance tests yet.
An alternative would be using apr_allocator_alloc() directly (with the global pool's allocator). Creating a sub-pool seems more overhead than necessary. Not sure what is better, malloc() or apr_allocator_alloc().
