Wow, hotmail butchered that one. Sorry, its been cranky since their last big patch. Lets try it again.
>> 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 from a garbage collector. Gabe _________________________________________________________________ Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You! http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
