Armin Rigo <arigo at tunes.org> writes: > Hello Michael, > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:35:05AM +0000, Michael Hudson wrote: >> > "Not easy" would have been more appropriate. It is still basically what >> > malloc() does. >> >> Well, yeah, but as Tim said pymalloc gets its wins from assuming that >> each allocation is the same size. You could combine my idea with some >> other allocation scheme, certainly, but given the relative paucity of >> variable length types and the reduction in allocator overhead using >> something like pymalloc gives us, I think it might just be easier to >> not do them any more. Of course, I don't see myself having any time >> to play with this idea any time soon, and it's probably not really >> beefy enough to get a masters thesis from, so maybe we'll never know. > > Ok. I expect it to be much easier to experiment with with PyPy anyway. This had occured to me too :-) Cheers, mwh -- Never meddle in the affairs of NT. It is slow to boot and quick to crash. -- Stephen Harris -- http://home.xnet.com/~raven/Sysadmin/ASR.Quotes.html
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4