flo.ruijt at gmail.com
Thu Feb 24 02:11:48 UTC 2011
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 02:04 +0100, Aleix Pol wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:14 AM, floris <flo.ruijt at gmail.com> wrote:
> I've looked into rxx_allocator. At first I had some issues
> profiling it,
> as it were inlined (Valgrind should learn how to profile that
> the previous allocator was not very good. it used a realloc'd
> array of
> pointers to blocks, which would be deleted in the destructor.
> my allocator uses a linked list of blocks, which are put in a
> linked list at the destructor. it uses a QMutex to make sure
> that no two
> threads try to pull the same block.
> the other part of this patch are the removal of useless
> includes of
> memorypool.h (which made large parts of kdevelop recompile on
> every edit
> to the allocator) and templating listnode on pool so that it
> need the memorypool.h header in it's own.
> KDevelop-devel mailing list
> KDevelop-devel at kdevelop.org
> Sounds like a not-so-straightforward optimization.
> Is it really faster? what is the improvement using duchainify?
i measured it with
duchainify --force-update-recursive /languages/cpp/
here are the results:
or it is about 11% faster
More information about the KDevelop-devel