Sorry, badly phrased reply. I didn't mean to imply it was a bad idea, but you didn't explain at all why 4, and not 3 or 6, or 42 ? If it's good with 4, it ought to be better with more, right ? any data point or rationale for choosing 4 ?
- malloc freelists Ted Unangst
- Re: malloc freelists Damien Miller
- Re: malloc freelists Ted Unangst
- Re: malloc freelists Bob Beck
- Re: malloc freelists Marc Espie
- Re: malloc freelists Marc Espie
- Re: malloc freelists Bob Beck
- Re: malloc freelists Ted Unangst
- Re: malloc freelists Theo de Raadt