Hi, On Fri, 3 Apr 2009, Pat Thoyts wrote: > 2009/4/3 Marius Storm-Olsen <marius@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > > Marius Storm-Olsen said the following on 03.04.2009 15:52: > >> The standard allocator on Windows is pretty bad prior to Windows > >> Vista, and nedmalloc is better than the modified dlmalloc provided > >> with newer versions of the MinGW libc. > > > > Actually, it just struck me that it's probably the synchronization > > primitives which are better on Vista than XP, and not the memory > > manager? (Since mingw 4.3.3-tdm on XP and Vista most likely use the > > same dlmalloc fork?) ^shrug^ > > > > Anyways, not that I haven't tried to 'tune' nedmalloc in any way, just > > ensured that it compiles with the different MinGWs which I > > benchmarked. So, if anyone feels like it, maybe we can squeeze more > > performance out of it by tweaking it. > > The difference on Windows Vista is that the low fragmentation heap is > the default memory allocator. On Windows XP you need to enable it > specifically for an application. So a possible alternative to this is > just to enable the low fragmentation heap. (done via GetProcessHeaps and > HeapSetInformation Win32 API calls). Does this also work on NT? Ciao, Dscho -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
