On Jun 15, 2004, at 10:52 PM, Tim Peters wrote: > [Eric Huss] >> The only problem I see with using pymalloc is that the objects won't >> be >> stored in memory in such a compact way. > > The difference can be large, because pymalloc aligns to 8-byte > boundaries. > So, e.g., on most boxes today a Python int object consumes 12 bytes, > but > would consume 16 if allocated with pymalloc. That's a 33% boost, and > that > can be significant for apps hanging on to lots of ints. > > OTOH, on most boxes there would be no real size difference for float > objects. The implementation of malloc in OS X always returns pointers aligned to 16-byte boundaries, so that the buffers can be reasonably used by AltiVec instructions. Would there be a difference in this case? :) -bob -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 2357 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20040615/5a82b77f/smime.bin
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