On 3/16/2012 4:41, Warp wrote:
> Darren New<dne### [at] sanrrcom>  wrote:
>> You would be surprised at the number of implementations of malloc() and
>> free() that assume you're single-threaded and require locks.
>
>    Care to give an example (in a modern OS)? At least Gnu libc uses locking
> malloc() and free() (and it's one of the reasons for their slowness).

I think you just answered the question.

Maybe I phrased my statement wrong. Lots of implementations of malloc() and 
free() share a heap amongst multiple threads, so either need to lock 
internally or need to be used from a single-threaded system. And hence, they 
assume you're single threaded within the context of malloc/free because 
they've acquired a global lock.  I.e., yes, you get contention between 
threads with manual memory management.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message