http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55916
--- Comment #10 from Jouko Orava <jouko.orava at iki dot fi> --- (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #9) > I can do the testing on darwin (intel d10 and d13, ppc d9). That would be very much appreciated. I've put a tarball and some background info on my web page at http://www.helsinki.fi/~joorava/memory/ Simply put, on my machine, 64-bit code has very little slowdown if memalign() (or even posix_memalign()) is used instead of malloc(). Compiling 32-bit code, both memalign() and posix_memalign() incur a 2x to 4x more CPU time, with posix_memalign() having a more or less fixed overhead compared to memalign(). As I mention on the web page, I only wrote this to have a reason to select a specific function. To me, the results indicate memalign() is the second-best choice (best being "fixing" malloc()). If you find any errors, or have results I may add to the above page (whether or not they contradict mine), I'd be happy to include your notes there.
