On 17 Jul 2010, at 21:50, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> All applications but the ones that allocate a only few memory blocks
>> (especially in case it's a few small blocks of many different sizes) would
>> benefit from this change, not just apps allocating hundreds of megabytes
Jonas Maebe wrote:
All applications but the ones that allocate a only few memory blocks
(especially in case it's a few small blocks of many different sizes) would
benefit from this change, not just apps allocating hundreds of megabytes at the
same time (it also helps in case applications maxim
In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:
> >> I think applications using 300MB+ are the exception, not the rule;
> >
> > In absolute numbers: sure. In cases where me
On 17 Jul 2010, at 19:01, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>>> 256kB on 297MB isn't much; but if a program has typical memory use of e.g.
>>> 3MB it is significant ;-).
>> They could still change it in their application's startup code. We could
>> also set a different default for the
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
> Florian Klaempfl wrote on Fri, 16 Jul 2010:
>
>> One of the bottlenecks the common user encounters, is unit loading:
>> especially projects like the lazarus suffer from the time spent into
>> unit loading while I suspect that it narrows down also to procedures
>> like fillch
Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:
I think applications using 300MB+ are the exception, not the rule;
In absolute numbers: sure. In cases where memory management performance is
limiting, they are more likely to be memory intensive apps.
How do you know?
In our previous episode, Micha Nelissen said:
> >
> > They could still change it in their application's startup code. We could
> > also set a different default for the embedded rtl.
>
> I think applications using 300MB+ are the exception, not the rule;
In absolute numbers: sure. In cases where
Jonas Maebe wrote:
256kB on 297MB isn't much; but if a program has typical memory use of e.g. 3MB
it is significant ;-).
They could still change it in their application's startup code. We could also
set a different default for the embedded rtl.
I think applications using 300MB+ are the exce
On 17 Jul 2010, at 18:46, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> Jonas Maebe wrote:
>> Total memory usage barely changes (from 297MB to 299MB). I guess it's no
>
> For the compiler use case .. ;-) Perhaps the compiler creates a lot of same
> sized blocks, while other (smaller) applications allocate many diff
Jonas Maebe wrote:
Total memory usage barely changes (from 297MB to 299MB). I guess it's no
For the compiler use case .. ;-) Perhaps the compiler creates a lot of
same sized blocks, while other (smaller) applications allocate many
different sizes; say use a lot of different sizes classes.
D
Florian Klaempfl wrote on Fri, 16 Jul 2010:
One of the bottlenecks the common user encounters, is unit loading:
especially projects like the lazarus suffer from the time spent into
unit loading while I suspect that it narrows down also to procedures
like fillchar which consume a lot of time.
T
11 matches
Mail list logo
