Message305345
| Author | vstinner |
|---|---|
| Recipients | benjamin.peterson, neologix, njs, pitrou, rhettinger, skrah, tim.peters, trent, vstinner, wscullin, xdegaye |
| Date | 2017-11-01.01:15:54 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1509498954.99.0.213398074469.issue18835@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
msg196194: Antoine Pitrou: "Note that the current small object allocator, if not disabled, *should* already return you aligned memory, by construction (each allocation size has dedicated pools from which memory blocks are carved)." In my current implementation of _PyObject_AlignedAlloc(), I only call pymalloc_alloc() for alignment <= pymalloc ALIGNMENT. Maybe we can do better? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2017-11-01 01:15:55 | vstinner | set | recipients: + vstinner, tim.peters, rhettinger, pitrou, benjamin.peterson, trent, njs, skrah, neologix, xdegaye, wscullin |
| 2017-11-01 01:15:54 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1509498954.99.0.213398074469.issue18835@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2017-11-01 01:15:54 | vstinner | link | issue18835 messages |
| 2017-11-01 01:15:54 | vstinner | create | |