Re: memory not freed up?
- From: Brooks Moses <bmoses-nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 15:37:20 -0700
Rich Townsend wrote:
Can I suggest a much-simpler strategy to avoid memory fragmentation: always try to deallocate arrays in the order in which they were created. As far as I'm concerned, any approach more sophisticated than that will be highly platform-dependent, and therefore may have sub-optimal performance on platforms for which it was not 'tuned'.
My naive impression would be that the appropriate strategy would be to deallocate arrays in the _reverse_ order from the order in which they were created.
Am I missing something obvious, or was this a typo?
- Brooks
-- The "bmoses-nospam" address is valid; no unmunging needed. .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: memory not freed up?
- From: Rich Townsend
- Re: memory not freed up?
- References:
- memory not freed up?
- From: cluenewbieblue
- Re: memory not freed up?
- From: fj
- Re: memory not freed up?
- From: Rich Townsend
- memory not freed up?
- Prev by Date: Re: ordinate a sequences of number
- Next by Date: Re: RANDOM
- Previous by thread: Re: memory not freed up?
- Next by thread: Re: memory not freed up?
- Index(es):