On Fri, 27 Jul 2001, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote: > > * 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?
Weren't we going to try switching apr_sms_malloc() from a function to a macro? You'd still need an extra pointer indirection, but that's better than a full-blown function call... --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
