On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Nathan Froyd <froy...@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 04, 2011 at 09:01:20PM +0200, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 8:49 PM, Nathan Froyd <froy...@codesourcery.com> >> wrote: >> > This patch does just what $SUBJECT suggests. Benefits: >> > >> > - Smaller data structures in combine; >> > - Freeing LOG_LINKS becomes much easier (don't have to transfer >> > everything to the INSN_LIST free list); >> > >> > Potential downsides: >> > >> > - Less sharing of INSN_LIST nodes might mean more cache thrashing. >> >> It looks like LOG_LINKs are allocated once. An alloc pool is >> interesting if you allocate and free objects of the same size all the >> time. In this case, I'd say an obstack would be a simpler and better >> choice. > > FWIW, I went with alloc_pool because of the stats-for-free you get with > appropriate configury.
I agree with Steven - alloc-pools have higher overhead because they deal with memory re-use which you don't appearantly need. Richard.
