"deadalnix" <deadal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, 17 July 2014 at 19:19:40 UTC, Tobias Müller wrote: >> 1. "There is no deallocation" is just plain wrong. >> > > It is actually fairly common to not deallocate and reuse the pool for later > allocations.
If by deallocation you mean returning the memory to the OS, then yes. But the same holds for 'free' in C. Marking a memory region as free for reuse _is_ deallocation IMO. I guess it's a terminology thing. > Also, it doesn't matter as the complexity of deallocation doesn't depend > on the size of the block deallocated. > > In the case of a copying collector, the deallocation won't even show up > in benchmark as tracing and copying will dominate CPU time by a LOT ! Yes that's what I said, bulk deallocation is cheap. Got snipped away unfortunately. Tobi
