On 09/03/2014 12:32 AM, Tobias Doerffel wrote: > Hi, > > first profiling results seem to be a bit disappointing
One thing that could be done is to go to MemoryManager.h, edit all the macros (MM_OPERATORS, MM_ALLOC, MM_FREE) to use regular dynamic allocations, do a custom build of it, then do a benchmark against vanilla memmgr branch - and add in master for comparison/baseline. This way we could figure out if the MemoryManager really is the culprit here, or if there's something else in the branch causing this performance hit. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Slashdot TV. Video for Nerds. Stuff that matters. http://tv.slashdot.org/ _______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
