From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id BCFFDBC75 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:44:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from first.in-berlin.de (dialin-145-254-065-087.arcor-ip.net [145.254.65.87]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1BKiOqv007727 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 21:44:25 +0100 Received: by first.in-berlin.de (Postfix, from userid 501) id 333FEAAB5B; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:28:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2005 12:28:57 +0100 From: Oliver Bandel To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory allocation nano-benchmark. Message-ID: <20050211112857.GC429@first.in-berlin.de> References: <420B7A7E.90504@or.uni-bonn.de> <1108083859.16698.198.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1108083859.16698.198.camel@pelican.wigram> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 420D1928.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; oliver:01 bandel:01 oliver:01 in-berlin:01 caml-list:01 wrote:01 wrote:01 prevost:01 prevost:01 allocates:01 malloc:01 malloc:01 ...:98 14.:98 behaviour:01 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.1 required=5.0 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 12:04:20PM +1100, skaller wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 03:50, Marwan Burelle wrote: > > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:59:53 -0500, John Prevost wrote: > > > In a program that allocates one very large chunk of memory, > > > It also depends on malloc, on Linux it sometimes works > > "optimisticaly", that is, it won't realy allocate memory unless you > > use it You can call calloc() instead of malloc, so you automatically use the memory. Would be interesting to have a bench on this... > > This behaviour is not allowed by the ISO C Standard. Yes, that's true. > This case was actually discussed by WG14. What is the WG14? Ciao, Oliver