Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 09:52:35 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: ehhanced realloc test program
In-Reply-To: <3B0BFD5F.25329.475F21@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010524094916.17472N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Wed, 23 May 2001, Mark E. wrote:

> Current realloc method output (32 byte increase):
> Time spent in realloc: 11.428571
> 
> New realloc method output (32 byte increase):
> Time spent in realloc: 0.054945
> 
> Increasing the delta to 128 bytes made the difference even more dramatic:
> Time spent in realloc: 50.549451 (old)
> 
> Time spent in realloc: 0.054945 (new)

0.054945 is a single tick of the 18.2 clock.  I don't know what that 
means, but perhaps it will get you ideas.

> The improvement is so dramatic it seems too good to be believe without confirmation. So I'd like 
> to know if there's anything obviously wrong with the test. If not, I can post an updated realloc 
> patch for review.

Please post the patched realloc in its entirety (it is easier to grasp 
that way), including its immediate subroutines that you wrote.