Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site amdcad.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!amdcad!jimb
From: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Macintosh C comparisons?
Message-ID: <11566@amdcad.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-May-86 13:16:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: amdcad.11566
Posted: Sat May  3 13:16:31 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 07:02:10 EDT
References: <2392@decwrl.DEC.COM> <336@tolerant.UUCP> <1454@garfield.columbia.edu> <464@Shasta.ARPA>
Reply-To: jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler)
Organization: AMD, Sunnyvale, California
Lines: 17

In article <464@Shasta.ARPA> gus@Shasta.ARPA (Gus Fernandez) writes:
>Now some might say that you really shouldn't be using standard C routines 
>for Mac code. The storage allocation primitives, however, are arguably
>an exception which should not be overlooked. These routines SHOULD be
>optimized to be as fast as possible and still use the Mac heap architecture.
>The best way to do this is to provide a two-level memory allocation heirarchy
>which allocates LARGE blocks from the memory manager, and splits these up
>into small blocks as requested by the user.

Sounds like a surefire way to run out of memory. I suggest you remove the
term 'the best' above and replace it with something like 'one way I like'.
-- 
 Jim Budler
 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
 (408) 749-5806
 Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
 Compuserve:	72415,1200