|
|
|
|
|
by CyberDildonics
1923 days ago
|
|
To be clear, you specifically brought up an optimization that you are now saying was done for no reason since it gains nothing. Now you are trying to say that you actually optimize programs by taking minimal memory allocation and instead using millions of tiny allocations of a few bytes each? Do I have this right? Feel free to link that example. > Sometimes allocation is much better than reusing existing allocated space, due to reasons of spatial and temporal locality, cache obliviousness, escape analysis, publication semantics, coherence and NUMA effects, and more. Are we to the part where you are just throwing out terminology? Are you really digging in this hard? Virtually everything written about optimizing memory allocations is about doing it less. Even this article is about decreasing memory allocations for performance. You made a claim that is very unsound in a pragmatic sense and anyone with experience would recognize that. You can just own up to that instead of going into a territory of wild claims and diversions. |
|
Mate I don’t know why you’ve gotten so worked up and aggressive about this.
But if you think I don’t know what I’m talking about despite all my work and publications on the subject then feel free to ignore me and go about your day happily.