On Tuesday 26 February 2013 11:44:31 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> > should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo.
>
> Certainly I think it would be far more prod
On Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:33:44 -0500
Richard Yao wrote:
> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies between
> what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc allocated:
>
> http://www.sintel.org/development/memory-jemalloc/
>
> Results such as these led Blender an
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:10:09AM -0800, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > In terms of 'following Gentoo policy.' We encourage packages to be as
> > close to upstream as possible. I cannot fathom why when you basically
> > find a performance bug in mallo
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 of February 2013 11:44:31 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
>> > I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
>> > should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't jus
On 26 February 2013 16:37, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 of February 2013 11:44:31 Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner
> wrote:
> > > I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> > > should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't jus
On Tuesday 26 of February 2013 11:44:31 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> > I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> > should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo.
>
> Certainly I think it would be far more
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> In terms of 'following Gentoo policy.' We encourage packages to be as
> close to upstream as possible. I cannot fathom why when you basically
> find a performance bug in malloc, you start a thread on the list about
> replacing it; as opposed to
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote:
> I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they
> should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo.
Certainly I think it would be far more productive to talk to the glibc
maintainers first.
However, nothing p
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> Unless a significant issue is found in jemalloc itself, I do not see any
> reason to continue using glibc's ptmalloc over jemalloc. As far as I
> know, FreeBSD, NetBSD, Facebook and others are using jemalloc, so I
> expect that no significant i
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:33 AM, Richard Yao wrote:
> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies between
> what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc allocated:
>
> http://www.sintel.org/development/memory-jemalloc/
>
> Results such as these led Blender and oth
Am 26.02.2013 14:52, schrieb Richard Yao:
> On 02/26/2013 08:48 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>> On 26/02/13 14:33, Richard Yao wrote:
>>> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies
>>> between what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc
>>> allocated
>> Have the
On 02/26/2013 08:48 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
> On 26/02/13 14:33, Richard Yao wrote:
>> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies
>> between what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc
>> allocated
> Have they filed a bug?
>
I don't know. You should ask t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 26/02/13 14:33, Richard Yao wrote:
> The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies
> between what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc
> allocated
Have they filed a bug?
- --
Alexander
alexan...@plaimi.net
http:
On 02/26/2013 08:35 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:
> On 26/02/2013 14:33, Richard Yao wrote:
>> Results such as these led Blender and others (e.g. Chrome/Chromium,
>> Firefox, Thunderbird) to bundle private versions of jemalloc. This
>> bundling situation violates our policy against bundled librarie
On 26/02/2013 14:33, Richard Yao wrote:
> Results such as these led Blender and others (e.g. Chrome/Chromium,
> Firefox, Thunderbird) to bundle private versions of jemalloc. This
> bundling situation violates our policy against bundled libraries. The
> maintainers could just patch their software to
The Blender project found some fairly remarkable discrepancies between
what their software actually used and what glibc's ptmalloc allocated:
http://www.sintel.org/development/memory-jemalloc/
Results such as these led Blender and others (e.g. Chrome/Chromium,
Firefox, Thunderbird) to bundle priv
16 matches
Mail list logo
