Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2015 Archives by date, by thread · List index




On 2015-09-28 03:11 PM, Markus Mohrhard wrote:


I'm not sure if I understand your comment. Can you please clarify what you mean with that? Maybe my 
understanding of our
memory allocators is bad but I see not how this comment applies to the discussion.


I'm saying that in general I regard changing allocators as doing optimisation in the wrong place - if your allocator is a real bottle-neck, you would probably be better off looking at optimising the code that __calls__ the allocator, rather than messing with the allocator itself.

For example, if you had code that did:
   vector<int> buffer;
   for (int i=0; i<1000000000; i++)
        buffer.push_back(i);
you'd be better off inserting a
   buffer.reserve(1000000000)
just before the loop, to avoid the std::vector's resize-and-copy operation.

But that's just my opinion, feel free to experiment away if allocators are your thing :-)


Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.