> BTW, why can you say 'with a performance improvement'? > I wonder this from looking at this patch and from upstream > discussion (including you :).
I meant "relative to the orignal patch". The original patch always did a non-constant division to check for overflow. Such a division is very expensive on most processors; malloc didn't have such a division in any code path so far. The new patch only uses the division when necessary, in particular not for the comman calloc(1, small_size) case. Regards, Wolfram. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
