dev_dwarf
No user record in our sample, but dev_dwarf has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
No user record in our sample, but dev_dwarf has activity below (stories or comments). Likely we have partial data — the full bulk-load will fill profiles in.
You'll find by looking at their older posts that the author has actually written quite a lot of elisp.
Thats an interesting idea. I'm not sure I'm sold on it v.s. just having two seperate allocators and growing them seperately. The arena allocators I use take advantage of virtual memory to grow which might change my…
For the alignment parameter I agree.
Agreed. The question really is if you should demand the user to enforce that constraint on the size they pass to you, or if the function itself should signal an error in that case.
Nice. Seems to work for case you mentioned under my comment: https://godbolt.org/z/TYorcd8b6
Ok, I get it now. It would add an extra ptr to the struct, but wouldn't be significant overhead. I do wonder what benefit there is for you over just having two separate allocators, one for long term and one for short…
This sounds like it would make the alloc logic much more complicated and branch-y, defeating the purpose of bumping down anyway, unless your implying some compile-time way to do this.
In the "bump up" version you could remove both the checked_add branches and replace them with a single check at the end, making the amount of branches the same. Quick example: https://godbolt.org/z/rdv4qnrs8. *edited to…