Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.std.c |
| Subject | Re: VLAs use less stack |
| Date | 2012-09-01 11:36 -0700 |
| Organization | None to speak of |
| Message-ID | <ln4nnhio9j.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> (permalink) |
| References | <k1q5bu$49h$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lnsjb2ucn5.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <k1sndu$fcq$1@news-rocq.inria.fr> |
Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> The only advantage it offers over using malloc/free unconditionally
>> is that it avoids the overhead of the malloc and free calls for
>> small buffers. Are malloc and free really expensive enough for
>> this to be a worthwhile optimization? The tradeoff is likely to
>> vary from one system to another. (I'm not trying to imply that
>> it's *not* worthwhile; I haven't measured it myself, and I'm asking
>> because I honestly don't know.)
>
> I have to side with Jacob here, malloc and free are expensive enough to
> make very complicated optimizations worthwile, sadly. I have seen a
> number of programs where more than half the running time was spent in
> malloc+free (and sometimes much more than half).
Ok.
But your use of the phrase "side with" implies that I've taken
sides against jacob. I haven't; I merely asked some questions.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Back to comp.std.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 12:58 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 14:10 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-08-31 14:13 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 18:09 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-31 18:14 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-01 12:24 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 22:57 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 22:59 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 11:42 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 10:18 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:18 +0100
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:19 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 23:01 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 11:36 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Marc <marc.glisse@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 19:05 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-02 16:56 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:22 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-04 00:39 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-09-04 10:28 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-04 11:31 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-04 17:02 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-02 23:28 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-02 14:37 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack John Nagle <nagle@animats.com> - 2012-09-02 15:45 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2012-09-04 00:03 +0200
Re: VLAs use less stack jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2012-09-01 16:09 +0000
Re: VLAs use less stack Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-01 11:45 -0700
Re: VLAs use less stack jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-09-01 23:05 +0200
csiph-web