Gabriel Sechan wrote:
No. Or at least no more so than the default malloc does. Those kinds of optimizations only really work if you know the parameters to optimize for. And given the mailing lists for Java at work, about 60% are from people complaining about the memory allocation or garbage allocation being suboptimal. Usually the solution is to use a completely different garbage collector.
References? Or are these internal-only lists.
And for that matter, if .NET and Java have these optimizations,
Just for reference, they do have these optimizations. Malloc() does not.
what makes you think malloc doesn't? Malloc is an interface, the implementation can be anything it wants.
Because malloc() cannot introspect what it is allocating. The JVM and the .Net virtual machine maintain statistics internally as to allocation patterns and lifetime duration.
Disagree. First off performance isn't there. And performance still matter, until you buy my hardware.
A) You would rather blow the performance of multiple megabytes of memory than run an occasional mark-and-sweep or even an incremental collect (bounded delay).
B) You have made this assertion before, and you *still* have no data to back up your assertion. Worse, you are willing to throw away large chunks of memory to get this "theoretical" performance without any data as to how much performance that lack of memory throws onto the floor.
For a second, I find that thinking about memory allocation and such issues bring about better designed programs- usually my fist sign that a design is bad is that the memory ownership has become odd.
I don't necessarily disagree.
And frankly, memory management is pretty dead fucking simple.
If so, I'm sure that the Firefox guys would love the help. -a -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
