On Saturday 23 March 2013, Jeff Trawick wrote: > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Fritsch <s...@sfritsch.de> wrote: > > On Saturday 16 March 2013, Jeff Trawick wrote: > >> This would be good to resolve in 1.5.2. > >> > >> Has anyone else evaluated this? I'm suspicious of the use of a > >> global pool in the reporter's patch vs. just using malloc() > >> directly. I guess the reason for using the pool is that the > >> allocator may have suitable buffers lying around, but you need > >> one for the pool and one for the structure instead of just > >> getting one from malloc(). I haven't tried any performance > >> tests yet. > > > > An alternative would be using apr_allocator_alloc() directly > > (with the global pool's allocator). Creating a sub-pool seems > > more overhead than necessary. Not sure what is better, malloc() > > or apr_allocator_alloc(). > > No good way to get to global_pool/global_allocator from outside > apr_pools.c AFAICT > > I think malloc() wins here...
You are right. What about http://svn.apache.org/r1460243 Anyone has a system using CRYPTD to test this? Cheers, Stefan
