Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "2000628".
Did you mean:
20060628
2008 May 18
4
[LLVMdev] Forward: Discussion about custom memory allocators for STL
...huge.
> But if we look at the number of new/delete calls, then it is quite different:
> 1) without STL standard allocator - Total of only 847(!!!) mallocs for
> all of the allocators together, while adding 1000000 nodes for each
> of them.
> 2) with STL standard allocator - Total of 2000628 mallocs for all of
> the allocators together, while adding 1000000 nodes for each of them.So, it looks like on Linux the allocator used by STL is still using malloc/free rather extensively.
Even if pool allocator is used by STL by default, it is not saving too much of malloc/free calls, as
you...
2008 May 17
7
[LLVMdev] Forward: Discussion about custom memory allocators for STL
...huge.
> But if we look at the number of new/delete calls, then it is quite different:
> 1) without STL standard allocator - Total of only 847(!!!) mallocs for
> all of the allocators together, while adding 1000000 nodes for each
> of them.
> 2) with STL standard allocator - Total of 2000628 mallocs for all of
> the allocators together, while adding 1000000 nodes for each of them.
>
> So, the standard allocator of STL produces a huge number of
> new/delete calls. And other allocators reduce it
> by almost 4 orders of magnitude. But, as mentioned before, it DOES NOT
>...