On Wed, 2003-06-18 at 15:21, Stanislav Malyshev wrote: > The number 80 was chosen because even if malloc allocates 128 bytes, these > 128 bytes would be reused using the Zend memory cache. However, if the > size of the segment does not allow it to be into the Zend memory cache, > new malloc would be attempted each time. That was the primery rationale > for the change, not the memory-saving argument, though it is important > too.
How about including a malloc() implementation of your own? Doug Lea's dmalloc comes to mind. That way, you should be able to get a much higher level of control over how it allocates small blocks (which are indeed very common in almost all computer programs). -- Best regards, Per Lundberg / Capio ApS Phone: +46-18-4186040 Fax: +46-18-4186049 Web: http://www.nobolt.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
