Re: [Algorithms] memory pool algorithms

[Alan L. <ram...@gm...>]

unless you add hierarchy to the bit-vector..

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Plunket" <ga...@fa...>
To: "Game Development Algorithms" <gda...@li...>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] memory pool algorithms


>>> then clearly moving things around shouldn't be too terrible.  I believe
>>> keeping a parallel bitfield would be more straight forward than an
>>> unsorted array of free elements.
>>
>> So with the parallel bit-field, each bit indicates whether the element 
>> has
>> been allocated, and when you iterate over all elements you skip elements
>> without a set bit?
>
> That was my thinking, with the 30 seconds I spent on the problem.  ;)
>
> I'm not sure if it's ideal, and I'm sure its power would show off
> differently in sparse vs. not allocation patterns, but compared to an
> array of integers that would require traversing the allocations in
> arbitrary order I think it would considerably outperform this.  However,
> I'm also aware that setting bits in bitfields is horrifically slow on some
> platforms, so you'd probably want to write whatever your solution was in
> assembler so that you could optimally schedule memory reads and writes.
> (I did battle with a certain compiler this week on just this front, but my
> solution was to remove the need for the set bits at all.)
>
> -tom!
>
> -- 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Crystal Reports &#45; New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial
> Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited
> royalty&#45;free distribution of the report engine for externally facing
> server and web deployment.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=gdalgorithms-list
>