[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
> Given that malloc will cache any reasonable small allocation anyway,
> we are talking about a few dozen or 100 cpu cycles for an operation
> that is expected to take several orders of magnitude more.
I wouldn't be concerned about CPU time costs, no. I'm more concerned
about malloc _failing_.
Given what you said in another message about password hashing being a
deliberate(!) memory hog, it probably doesn't matter much in practice,
in most cases. But I would still dislike an API that requires it;
replacing a hashing algorithm for non-"most" cases is a lot easier than
replacing the API.
/~\ The ASCII Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
X Against HTML mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B
Main Index |
Thread Index |