From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,123c40d62c632159 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: gisle@apal.ii.uib.no (Gisle S�lensminde) Subject: Re: Stack based allocation vs. Dynamic allocation Date: 2000/05/31 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 629472500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: Organization: University of Bergen, Norway Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-31T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: >* Gisle S�lensminde wrote: > >>The timing will be different on other platforms, but it would surprise >>me if heap allocation is faster anywhere. With more realistic >>memory usage, the heap allocation will probably be even worse. >>The only exception is probably the JVM target, where nearly everything >>is on the heap. > >There are a lot of 'single-address-space' OS around which do not have these >limitations. There heap allocation might be much faster than stack >allocation, simply because they have nothing to do on heap allocation but >to change the parameters of the stack and often rearrange it otherwise. I was probably a bit narrow-minded, since only PCs/workstations came to my mind. For other kinds of systems performance is a very different matter. -- -- Gisle S�lensminde ( gisle@ii.uib.no ) ln -s /dev/null ~/.netscape/cookies