This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Summary of patches

In message <>, Richard Henderson writes:
 >On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 03:16:54PM +0100, Jan Hubicka wrote:
 >> > marked and swept without ever using ggc_alloc (which is not suited to
 >> > resizable data structures) for them.
 >> I will try to think about this deeper, but it seems to be that we will
 >> just end up with two ggc allocators hooked together.  With Richard's
 >> ggc_free patch we can now release the memory explicitely, so I am not
 >> quite sure what is the most sane approach here.
 >I think with ggc_free, ggc_alloc is no worse than malloc here.  
Well, the implementation of ggc_free had some issues -- namely that the
code to deal with freeing an object on an otherwise full page could
dominate compile-time if extreme cases.  I've fixed that :-)

The one area where it looks like it could be improved would be to _not_ 
ggc_free if the reallocation can be satisfied by simply extending the
existing allocation because it did not fill the allocation size for its
page.  This happens regularly with varrays.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]