From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2002-10-03T19:50:27+09:00
Subject: Re: tuples versus arrays

On Thu, Oct 03, 2002 at 02:06:30PM +0900, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
> Hello Mauricio,
> 
> Wednesday, October 02, 2002, 11:24:55 PM, you wrote:
> >> it is another question. memory allocator is common to all classes, so
> >> it's his problem - fast allocation of small memory areas. your idea is
> >> only for case when class has ITS OWN memory sub-allocator
> 
> MF> I was rather thinking of the common memory allocator using a separate
> MF> area (and algorithm) if it is told the memory for a n-sized tuple. 
> 
> better approach - using special blocks for allocating 1-20 byte areas,
> and one common block for all areas larger. tuple is not only one
> structure with fixed size which ryby VM has to allocate
> 

This is quite easy to implement in Ruby right now, but I don't know how
big a speed increase we'd see. malloc and friends have been subject to
serious optimization so it won't be easy to beat them even with a more
specific allocator.

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com
  
We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
	-- Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu