4 ms·
Not that I'm aware of. However, I would expect large regressions (20%+) in general, e.g. the malloc implementation in musl is famously primitive.
by SubjectToChange 2y ago
Not that I'm aware of. However, I would expect large regressions (20%+) in general, e.g. the malloc implementation in musl is famously primitive.
- jeffbee 2y agoHow could anyone who cares about allocator performance be satisfied with glibc's allocator in the first place?
- SubjectToChange 2y agoYeah, I suppose that's fair. Still, the musl malloc implementation is just the most infamous example of its subpar performance. Obviously glibc comes with an enormous amount of functionality and performance optimizations. Somewhat unrelated, but I'm looking forward to llvm-libc becoming a practical replacement for musl. I'd love a modern, non-gnu libc implementation that isn't so dogmatic.
- XorNot 2y agoTo ask a very stupid question: why don't they just replace it with a better one? Aren't allocator functions fairly well studied and by definition have source code already written? What's stopping them being able to just drop-in someething else to provide malloc()?
- stock_toaster 2y agoThis is what ChimeraLinux has done. https://chimera-linux.org/docs/configuration/musl https://chimera-linux.org/docs/configuration/musl