On Fri, Jul 27, 2001 at 12:05:02AM -0700, Brian Pane wrote: > hmmm...looking at the code, it makes sense that SMS is > half as fast as the original pools code. I didn't realize > this until just now, but the polymorphism in the SMS framework > will probably make it impossible to match the performance of pools: >
> * The SMS-based implementation has to do essentially the same > work, but it also does an extra function call (apr_sms_malloc > calls apr_sms_trivial_malloc). okay: how about this. in the cases where fast-optimisation is really really needed, how about calling the apr_sms_xxx_yyy() functions or even just function, direct? luke
