ptrubey@sce.UUCP (Phil Trubey) (03/09/88)
I've noticed quite a few postings talking about the dificiencies of the malloc that comes with Microport. I'm a bit confused about this, as Microport itself comes with two versions of malloc (at least in the 2.3 version). The version that you would use by default has performance problems, so the manual states. However, they supply a malloc library (used by linking with -lmalloc) that they say improves performance greatly. Are both versions of malloc performance pigs? Or just the standard one? Phil Trubey ptrubey@sce.uucp (!watmath!sce!ptrubey) ptrubey@carleton.bitnet
jhs@actnyc.UUCP (John Spicer) (03/14/88)
In article <344@sce.UUCP>, ptrubey@sce.UUCP (Phil Trubey) writes: > Are both versions of malloc performance pigs? Or just the standard > one? The standard version of malloc is a pig. The -lmalloc version DOES NOT WORK. This has been a problem for as long as I have been using Microport (since 1.2). Since malloc is important for a lot of applications (and one would think, for the performance of the Microport system itself), you would think that Microport would have more of an interest it fixing it. Does anyone know which version of malloc is used by the Mircoport compilers and utilities? If they use the standard malloc, their performance could possibly be improved by making -lmalloc work and using that version. John Spicer InterACT Corp. uunet!actnyc!jhs