Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > 2009/3/26 Branko Čibej <[email protected]>: > >> Maybe it's just me, but all that seems like a monumental waste of time. >> > > If we can't beat the old system by COB tomorrow consistently, then I > think we can simply revert it or we add tcmalloc as a compile-time > option if it's not too complex to use that. Either way, it's not that > big of a deal - and we've spent more time testing it than it did to > code it. >
Well the message I got was, "we're ripping this ancient slow pool stuff out 'cause malloc is faster." > Many many folks had claimed that libc's had gotten a lot better - if > we've now proven they haven't, then that's very useful information and > we can go back to what we had. The last time we had really touched > the pool code was back in 2001, so it was reasonable to explore > whether or not things had fundamentally changed. -- justin > Oh, libc's *have* gotten a lot better, at least some of those I've had the misfortune to be acquainted with. :-P But there's a difference between "better" and "good". -- Brane
