m0n0 wrote:
Am Freitag, den 11.06.2010, 00:54 +0200 schrieb Henk Robbers <h.robbers@chello.nl>:If you had not used copy/paste but in stead had written 1 funcion with 2 parameters (count, chunk) you wouldnt have made mistakes and it wouldnt have taken me precious time asking myself where the hell are the differences.Ok, sorry for 1 error in 1 test. ;) But that doesn't mean that hoard isn't much faster... as you can see by the tests ( the ones that really didmalloc the size that they should malloc...)
I have read a article about the Hoard a few years ago. My conclusion then: A big improvement, but also a huge amount of complexity needed to achieve this. I might have a look in the libc (or mintlib) malloc to see whether with a small increase of complexity a substantial increase of performance can be achieved. (I already wrote my own malloc for AHCC although not for the sake of performance rather than for flexibility of usage). -- Groeten; Regards. Henk Robbers. http://members.chello.nl/h.robbers Interactive disassembler: TT-Digger; http://digger.atari.org A Home Cooked C compiler: AHCC; http://ahcc.atari.org