Message189825
| Author | pitrou |
|---|---|
| Recipients | brian.curtin, loewis, neologix, pitrou, tim.golden |
| Date | 2013-05-22.17:24:57 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1369243497.87.0.0717446390235.issue13483@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
I asked for benchmarks because I don't know anything about Windows virtual memory management, but if other people think this patch should go in then it's fine. The main point of using VirtualAlloc/VirtualFree was, in my mind, to allow *releasing* memory in more cases than when relying on free() (assuming Windows uses some sbrk() equivalent). But perhaps Windows is already tuned to release memory on most free() calls. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-05-22 17:24:57 | pitrou | set | recipients: + pitrou, loewis, tim.golden, brian.curtin, neologix |
| 2013-05-22 17:24:57 | pitrou | set | messageid: <1369243497.87.0.0717446390235.issue13483@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2013-05-22 17:24:57 | pitrou | link | issue13483 messages |
| 2013-05-22 17:24:57 | pitrou | create | |