> Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:47:32 -0800> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]> To:
> [email protected]> Subject: Re: Still think manual memory
> management is a good idea? Read this ...> > Gabriel Sechan wrote:> > The real
> problem is> > doing a rather braindead allocation method- always calling
> malloc to> > get a new block, rather than giving each data type a pool to
> allocate> > from. Decide on a max size for each cache, allocate it at
> startup,> > and allocate from the correct pool. You can even be truely evil
> and> > do it automagically by overriding the new keyword. There you do- no>
> > more out of control memory issues. When a single cache runs out of> >
> memory, you bump old stuff from it to free up memory.> > Umm, how do you
> "bump old stuff" when everything is referenced by direct > pointers, pray
> tell?> What do you think a reference is? Its a direct pointer.The data
> structures discussed are caches. If you bump it, you drop it from the cache,
> and if its later requested you go to disk or to the net to grab it instead.
> A browser is semi-unique in that almost all of its memory is used in caches.
> Only the current webpage really must be resident in memory.> > > Only if that
> doesn't work do you malloc a bigger cache.> > Are you reading what you write?
> You just described a "stop-and-copy > garbage collector" (albeit a primitive
> one).> No, I described a cache with a pool based memory. Its far, far from a
> garbage collector. Gabe
_________________________________________________________________
Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare!
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
