From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Paul Eggert Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:10 -0700 Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Message-ID: <6933a66c-74d3-420a-3539-3e50bdf6a003@cs.ucla.edu> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477281603 27116 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 04:00:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 04:00:03 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 Cc: eliz@gnu.org, npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 05:59:56 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1byWQR-0005XW-Lx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 05:59:51 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44235 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byWQU-0004d3-1T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:59:54 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36556) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byWPx-0004cw-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:59:22 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byWPw-0003Lu-DX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:59:21 -0400 Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([131.179.128.68]:34196) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byWPs-0003Fj-HK; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 23:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3637C160F66; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10032) with ESMTP id TIZ9eN66KrPs; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19FA9160F70; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Original-Received: from zimbra.cs.ucla.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zimbra.cs.ucla.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id nxVG_r9E08r2; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.1.9] (unknown [47.153.178.162]) by zimbra.cs.ucla.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EAB3F160F66; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:59:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 131.179.128.68 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208649 Archived-At: Richard Stallman wrote: > > I don't like it either, but would rather work on redoing the build = process so > > that we can use the native malloc on all hosts. > > That may not be desirable, though. We started using GNU malloc > because it gave much better performance We could continue to do that, on the set of platforms where our copy of G= NU=20 malloc works significantly better than native malloc. My impression, thou= gh, is=20 that this set of platforms is gradually shrinking due to improvements in = memory=20 allocators. See, e.g.: Berger ED, Zorn BG, McKinley KS. Reconsidering custom memory allocation.=20 OOPSLA'02. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2502508.2502522 https://people.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/berger-oopsla2002.pdf