Thanks Jon, sorry I only just saw this. For some reason all midrange L
emails get to me, unless I have replied to them, in that case Outlook seems
to put them in my junk mail.
"I don't recall talking about overhead. It is just a question of not
wanting to have to reject a request for 5,000 bytes simply because all
you have available is 100 separate areas of 1,000 bytes."
You are right you didn't mention overhead, I was talking about overhead and
wondered if we were referring to the same thing. But I didn't word it very
well. It's clear now we were not talking about the same thing.
The sentence that keeps coming in to my head when I read your email, and the
reason I am struggling with what you are saying is.
"Why is it better to given extra ram to a call to malloc, when you know it
doesn't need it, when the next call might need it."
i.e. if call 1 asks for 90 bytes why give it 100 bytes when the next call
might be for 10 bytes?
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact
[javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
midrange.com
