On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 09:51:49PM +0100, Marine Kelley wrote: > This is exactly how I had interpreted it, and this means that a script has to > explicitely request less memory than the default 64k if the scripter wants to > use less memory. And I don't think there will be any other way to do that than > by calling a LSL function to request memory. Which means modifying existing > scripts. This is unacceptable for all well established business owners who > made > many different script that are now spread across SL. To me, a script should > take as many bytes as it needs, not more, and that amount of memory should > vary > with time. Otherwise it is not practicable, and will break content once the > limits are in place.
Watch them do it; you don't really think there is a Linden that can write a malloc library (for scripts), right? Willing to donate his librmalloc code, that is EXTREMELY efficient with memory, Carlo Wood PS Here is an old post that I digged up, about a test that I did with rmalloc: Here is the result of a stress test program which allocates 1000000 random sized blocks, freeing and allocating at random so on average about 5000 blocks are allocated at the same moment. gnu malloc: program output: max_heap_size = 8499200 average heap size = 8372077; average allocated 5143466 time 37.715371 s my malloc (called 'rmalloc'): program output: max_heap_size = 6220752 average heap size = 6135204; average allocated 5143466 time 35.703490 s Thus, gmalloc had on average 8372077 - 5143466 = 3228611 bytes overhead (62%) while rmalloc had on average 6135204 - 5143466 = 991738 bytes overhead (19%). _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
