httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Malloc v.s. pools (was Shared memory in APR.)
Date Fri, 16 Jul 1999 15:32:35 GMT
Ralf S. Engelschall wrote:
> Ok, sure. So when I look at this from that point of few, it's as following:
> The argument of a slow malloc() is often true when we talk about the vendor
> version. But as long as an app does ship with its own fast version using
> directly malloc() (from this lib!) this has NOT to mean that performance has
> to be reduced. Fine, that's what I intuitively expected. With a reasonable own
> malloc() it should be no problem as long as one do not need/want the nice
> semantics of a pool system, as Ben H. mentioned.

That's true. If one ships one's own malloc then the performance
issue is reduced. A wrapper is then used to "extend" the malloc
interface, so you get the best of both worlds.

   Jim Jagielski   |||   |||
            "That's no ordinary rabbit... that's the most foul,
            cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever laid eyes on"

View raw message