Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
X-To: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 22 Aug 2001 05:19:28 -0600 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
In-Reply-To: |
|
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
At 09:14 AM 8/21/01 -0500, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>compaction/coalescing, whatever....
>
>
>Back in the 1990s, I used a compiler that did not
>
>defragment its internal free list. It's algorithm
>
>for managing memory ensured that no matter how well
>
>the application ensured things were deallocated, the
>
>free list would get longer and longer and more and
>
>more fragmented, and allocations would get slower
>
>and slower until there was no memeory left.
>
>
>
>When we complained to the vendor, they sent us a
>
>package containing nothing but two pragmas. By
>
>withing that package into our main program, we
>
>caused the linker to use malloc and free instead
>
>of the vendor's run-time manager.
>
>
>
>Result: thread-safe, efficient, reliable, RM-compliant
>
>memory management! So why on earth did they do what
>
>they did in the first place?
Good question. An interesting example of "simplistic"? But then, one
would need some statistics on data element size requirements/trends over
time to know for sure HOW simplistic.
sro
S. Ron Oliver, semi-retired professor of Computer Science and Computer
Engineering. www.csc.calpoly.edu/~sroliver
caress Corporation is proud to be the U.S. representative for Top Graph'X,
developers of high quality software components, using Ada. For more
information, check out www.topgraphx.com.
|
|
|