In article <20000520172032.A7649@rek.tjls.com>,
Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> wrote:

> Um, just *when* was it noted that it was "faster"?  It was never faster; it
> can't have been faster; it will never be as fast; the old malloc was a totally
> mindless powers-of-two allocator, which is about as fast as you can get.
> 
> On the other hand, it's my point of view that applications which perform
> significantly worse with the current malloc are in many cases poorly designed;
> they should manage their memory allocation themselves to a much greater
> extent rather than calling malloc for 3 bytes all the time.  If you take this
> as a criticism of C++ itself, you'd be pretty much on-target.

Well, c++ has a lot of problems, but this is not one of them; You can
overload new() to avoid excessive malloc calls and have it use a pool
based allocator on a per object basis.

christos