Re: why malloc/free instead of GC?
"Boehm, Hans" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.programming.garbage-collection.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
It looks to me like much of this difference can still be explained by the fact that GC_malloc initializes the resulting objects, and hence takes the cache misses that a real client would otherwise take later. To make the measurements more comparable, you should initialize the objects after you allocate them. (I still wouldn't expect GC_malloc to win. I've normally seen that only for cons-cell sized or slightly larger objects.) Are there also differences in the amount of thread support that's included in the measurements? E.g. the system malloc usually tests a global to determine at runtime whether it needs to lock. Hans > -----Original Message----- > From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:14 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gclist] why malloc/free instead of GC? > > > For completeness, I changed my tiny test a bit to allocate smaller > objects, to take into account Hans Boehm's remark on typical object > size > > ... >