On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Fritsch <[email protected]> wrote: > 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().
No good way to get to global_pool/global_allocator from outside apr_pools.c AFAICT I think malloc() wins here... -- Born in Roswell... married an alien... http://emptyhammock.com/
