5 ms·
> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing That’s… ahistorical, at least so far
by ComputerGuru 6mo ago
> Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/best when they released and that didn't hold up to real world testing
That’s… ahistorical, at least so far as I remember. It wasn’t marketed as either of those; it was marketed as small/simple/consistent with an opt-in high-severity mode, and then its performance bore out as a result of the first set of target features/design goals. It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc.
- codexon 6mo ago> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc. That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
- jeffbee 6mo agomimalloc definitely made claims that could not be reproduced, or at least not by me. That's why I wrote this doc five years ago. "Irreproducible malloc benchmarks" https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/evnn6yoornh9p6l7nq1t9/Irreproducible-malloc-benchmarks.paper?rlkey=73mi4op4hfn7euqmry9bmnxtr&dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/evnn6yoornh9p6l7nq1t9/Irrepro...