Hi René,
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019, René Scharfe wrote:
> Importing the latest version of nedmalloc might make sense in general.
> The last commit in git://github.com/ned14/nedmalloc.git was done five
> years ago; is it finished? A diffstat with -b looks like this:
>
> malloc.c.h | 1193 +
Am 08.08.19 um 14:38 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:07 AM René Scharfe wrote:
>>
>> Am 08.08.19 um 04:35 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:03 AM René Scharfe wrote:
Am 07.08.19 um 11:49 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> was hoping will perform better but it
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 12:07 AM René Scharfe wrote:
>
> Am 08.08.19 um 04:35 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> > On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:03 AM René Scharfe wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 07.08.19 um 11:49 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> >>> was hoping will perform better but it seems that testing can be done
> >>> only in w
Am 08.08.19 um 04:35 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:03 AM René Scharfe wrote:
>>
>> Am 07.08.19 um 11:49 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
>>> was hoping will perform better but it seems that testing can be done
>>> only in windows
>>
>> nedmalloc works on other platforms as well.
>
> I mean
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 6:03 AM René Scharfe wrote:
>
> Am 07.08.19 um 11:49 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> > was hoping will perform better but it seems that testing can be done
> > only in windows
>
> nedmalloc works on other platforms as well.
I meant[1] it works reliably enough to be useful for perfo
Carlo Arenas writes:
>> > +#ifdef USE_NED_ALLOCATOR
>> > +static void *pcre2_malloc(PCRE2_SIZE size, MAYBE_UNUSED void *memory_data)
>> > +{
>> > + return malloc(size);
>>
>> Should this be xmalloc() to get consistent out-of-memory handling?
>
> good point, note though that since it is inside
Am 07.08.19 um 11:49 schrieb Carlo Arenas:
> was hoping will perform better but it seems that testing can be done
> only in windows
nedmalloc works on other platforms as well. On Debian Testing with GCC
9.1.0 I need two changes to suppress some compiler warnings, though.
Will post them as replies
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 10:38 PM René Scharfe wrote:
>
> Am 06.08.19 um 18:36 schrieb Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón:
> > Move some of the logic that was before done per thread (in the workers)
> > into an earlier phase to avoid degrading performance
>
> Which logic is moved? In the patch I basically
Am 06.08.19 um 18:36 schrieb Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón:
> 94da9193a6 (grep: add support for PCRE v2, 2017-06-01) didn't include
> a way to override the system allocator, and so it is incompatible with
> USE_NED_ALLOCATOR. The problem was made visible when an attempt to
> avoid a leak in a data st
9 matches
Mail list logo
