From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD824BC88 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:04:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1B14fKe025457 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:04:41 +0100 Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id CAA13715 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:04:40 +0100 (MET) Received: from smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net [203.16.214.203]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j1B14c7O025454 for ; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 02:04:40 +0100 Received: from [192.168.1.200] (ppp212-197.lns2.syd3.internode.on.net [203.122.212.197]) by smtp3.adl2.internode.on.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j1B14K9Z034336; Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:34:30 +1030 (CST) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Memory allocation nano-benchmark. From: skaller Reply-To: skaller@users.sourceforge.net To: Marwan Burelle Cc: John Prevost , caml-list In-Reply-To: References: <420B7A7E.90504@or.uni-bonn.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1108083859.16698.198.camel@pelican.wigram> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.2 (1.2.2-4) Date: 11 Feb 2005 12:04:20 +1100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 420C04A9.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 420C04A6.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 sourceforge:01 wrote:01 prevost:01 prevost:01 wrote:01 allocates:01 malloc:01 glebe:01 14.:98 061:98 nsw:01 behaviour:01 snail:02 2037:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=disabled version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 03:50, Marwan Burelle wrote: > On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:59:53 -0500, John Prevost wrote: > > In a program that allocates one very large chunk of memory, > It also depends on malloc, on Linux it sometimes works > "optimisticaly", that is, it won't realy allocate memory unless you > use it This behaviour is not allowed by the ISO C Standard. This case was actually discussed by WG14. -- John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net voice: 061-2-9660-0850, snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net