×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
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?
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 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
