Article View: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Article #13946Re: A REAL fork() function (was Re: SKsh weirdness)
From: David C. Navas
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1990 20:16
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1990 20:16
13 lines
1226 bytes
1226 bytes
In article <13920050@hpfelg.HP.COM> koren@hpfelg.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: >PS - I did some emperical tests, and Lattice's malloc() is significantly >faster than AllocMem() (in addition to being standard). It only matters >if you do alot of dynamic allocation, which SKsh does. Does anyone else find this wierd? I would suspect that malloc() is CALLING AllocMem()... Steve, are you telling AllocMem to clear your allocations? [via MEMF_CLEAR]?? This would, of course, be more like calloc(), wouldn't it? :) David Navas navas@cory.berkeley.edu "Think you can, think you can't -- either way it's true." Henry Ford
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<22496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navasReferences:
<DEVEN.90Feb22133919@netserv2.rpi.edu> <13920050@hpfelg.HP.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!pasteur!cory.Berkeley.EDU!navas From: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU (David C. Navas) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: A REAL fork() function (was Re: SKsh weirdness) Message-ID: <22496@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Date: 28 Feb 90 20:16:03 GMT References: <DEVEN.90Feb22133919@netserv2.rpi.edu> <13920050@hpfelg.HP.COM> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU Reply-To: navas@cory.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (David C. Navas) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 13