473,224 Members | 1,903 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,224 software developers and data experts.

malloc vs new -> speed of access, virtual memory

Hello there C++ pros..

Well, I have recently redesigned an already existing piece of code
that someone else designed - its just a search algorithm they
developed, and has to perfomr millions of loops depending on the data
input..

My problem is that my code can be upto 10 times slower than the
previous persons - and speed is very critical. (and I dont mean
setting up the arrays takes long, I'm more concernted about the speed
of the search algorithm itself..)

The only difference between my code and the other persons code is that
I am
using subscirpt math to represent 2D arrays using 1D arrays, (so every
access to an array has to do that extra math), also my code is more
object oriented, so more levels of indirection - but I try passing my
classes by reference so that it doesnt have to sepnd extra time
actually copying the data, only time to dereference the address..
ANd finally, I use the new/delete operators instead of malloc/free

I tried mashing my classes together to remove levels of indirection,
but by doing that I had to create more arrays using 'new', and my code
got even slower!!??

Then I decided to get rid of the subscritp math and i created dynamic
2D arrays instead of 1D arrays, and still no difference.

So the algorithm is the same, same number of loops etc, so this is not
the problem,
now the only difference left is that I'm using the new/delete
operators. DO you think this will affect my virtual memory or
something lets say and this is causing the search to slow down?

I've hit a roadblock!
I even profiled using gprof, and the only confuins thing is that its
telling me that 'internal_mcount' takes alot of time, i dont know what
the heck this is

this is wat it says:
called/total parents
index %time self descendents called+self name index
called/total children

<spontaneous>
[1] 60.1 198.18 0.00 internal_mcount [1]
0.00 0.00 1/3 atexit [112]

-----------------------------------------------

but yeah anyways, so do you think its the malloc/free new/delete
thing?
your hlep is very apprecieated
htanks!

lost bits =(
Jul 22 '05 #1
4 4325
On 29 Jan 2004 16:58:18 -0800, lo***********@hotmail.com (Lost Bits)
wrote in comp.lang.c++:
Hello there C++ pros..

Well, I have recently redesigned an already existing piece of code
that someone else designed - its just a search algorithm they
developed, and has to perfomr millions of loops depending on the data
input..

My problem is that my code can be upto 10 times slower than the
previous persons - and speed is very critical. (and I dont mean
setting up the arrays takes long, I'm more concernted about the speed
of the search algorithm itself..)

The only difference between my code and the other persons code is that
I am
using subscirpt math to represent 2D arrays using 1D arrays, (so every
access to an array has to do that extra math), also my code is more
object oriented, so more levels of indirection - but I try passing my
classes by reference so that it doesnt have to sepnd extra time
actually copying the data, only time to dereference the address..
ANd finally, I use the new/delete operators instead of malloc/free

I tried mashing my classes together to remove levels of indirection,
but by doing that I had to create more arrays using 'new', and my code
got even slower!!??

Then I decided to get rid of the subscritp math and i created dynamic
2D arrays instead of 1D arrays, and still no difference.

So the algorithm is the same, same number of loops etc, so this is not
the problem,
now the only difference left is that I'm using the new/delete
operators. DO you think this will affect my virtual memory or
something lets say and this is causing the search to slow down?

I've hit a roadblock!
I even profiled using gprof, and the only confuins thing is that its
telling me that 'internal_mcount' takes alot of time, i dont know what
the heck this is

this is wat it says:
called/total parents
index %time self descendents called+self name index
called/total children

<spontaneous>
[1] 60.1 198.18 0.00 internal_mcount [1]
0.00 0.00 1/3 atexit [112]

-----------------------------------------------

but yeah anyways, so do you think its the malloc/free new/delete
thing?
your hlep is very apprecieated
htanks!

lost bits =(


The C++ standard does not address the relative speed of any
operations.

If you want to find out what causes the difference in your versions of
your program with your compiler for your operating system with your
compiler options, either use a profiler or create a few test versions.
One that uses 2D arrays with malloc/free and one that uses 1D arrays
with new/delete. That should tell you quickly which change is making
what part of the timing difference under your set up.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html
Jul 22 '05 #2
"Lost Bits" <lo***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b**************************@posting.google.c om...
Hello there C++ pros..

Well, I have recently redesigned an already existing piece of code
that someone else designed - its just a search algorithm they
developed, and has to perfomr millions of loops depending on the data input..

My problem is that my code can be upto 10 times slower than the
previous persons - and speed is very critical. (and I dont mean
setting up the arrays takes long, I'm more concernted about the speed of the search algorithm itself..)

The only difference between my code and the other persons code is that I am
using subscirpt math to represent 2D arrays using 1D arrays, (so every access to an array has to do that extra math), also my code is more
object oriented, so more levels of indirection - but I try passing my classes by reference so that it doesnt have to sepnd extra time
actually copying the data, only time to dereference the address..
ANd finally, I use the new/delete operators instead of malloc/free

I tried mashing my classes together to remove levels of indirection,
but by doing that I had to create more arrays using 'new', and my code got even slower!!??

Then I decided to get rid of the subscritp math and i created dynamic 2D arrays instead of 1D arrays, and still no difference.

So the algorithm is the same, same number of loops etc, so this is not the problem,
now the only difference left is that I'm using the new/delete
operators. DO you think this will affect my virtual memory or
something lets say and this is causing the search to slow down?

I've hit a roadblock!
I even profiled using gprof, and the only confuins thing is that its
telling me that 'internal_mcount' takes alot of time, i dont know what the heck this is


As Jack Klein says, the standard doesn't guarantee anything about the
relative speed of malloc and global operator new. In practice,
however, you should not see such a difference. The problem could be
that the C++ uses new much more than the C version used malloc. This
would be fairly typical. Or there may be a lot of temporary objects
created that you are not aware of. There is no way to diagnose the
problem without seeing more of your code.

Jonathan
Jul 22 '05 #3

Lost Bits wrote:
I've hit a roadblock!
I even profiled using gprof, and the only confuins thing is that its
telling me that 'internal_mcount' takes alot of time, i dont know what
the heck this is
ignore 'internal_mcount'. It is the function inserted(by the compiler)
for gprof when you tell the compiler that you want to prepare the
executable for profiling(e.g -G option in HPUX). So it won't be present
otherwise.

-Amith
C++ Compiler Team
Hewlett Packard

this is wat it says:
called/total parents
index %time self descendents called+self name index
called/total children

<spontaneous>
[1] 60.1 198.18 0.00 internal_mcount [1]
0.00 0.00 1/3 atexit [112]

-----------------------------------------------

but yeah anyways, so do you think its the malloc/free new/delete
thing?
your hlep is very apprecieated
htanks!

lost bits =(


Jul 22 '05 #4
Lost Bits wrote:
Hello there C++ pros.. .... I've hit a roadblock!
I even profiled using gprof, and the only confuins thing is that its
telling me that 'internal_mcount' takes alot of time, i dont know what
the heck this is

this is wat it says:
called/total parents
index %time self descendents called+self name index
called/total children

<spontaneous>
[1] 60.1 198.18 0.00 internal_mcount [1]
0.00 0.00 1/3 atexit [112]

-----------------------------------------------

but yeah anyways, so do you think its the malloc/free new/delete
thing?
your hlep is very apprecieated


It'd nearly impossible to help you. Suggestions of profiling are good.

My experience is that C++ code runs just as fast as (usually faster
than) C code if you steer away from std::i/o streams. But you do need
to know up front what is important to optimize for.

Is this code somthing you can post ?

Jul 22 '05 #5

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

59
by: Steve Zimmerman | last post by:
This program compiles fine, but are there any hidden dangers in it, or is it ok? Experiment 1 ################################################## #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h>...
13
by: mike79 | last post by:
hi all.. if I wanted to malloc a struct, say the following: struct myStruct1 { int number; char *string; }
231
by: Brian Blais | last post by:
Hello, I saw on a couple of recent posts people saying that casting the return value of malloc is bad, like: d=(double *) malloc(50*sizeof(double)); why is this bad? I had always thought...
11
by: Gustavo G. Rondina | last post by:
Hi all I'm writting a simple code to solve an ACM problem (http://acm.uva.es, it is the problem #468). In its code I have the following fragment: freq = calcfreq(hashfreq, strfreq, input);...
27
by: Chess Saurus | last post by:
I'm getting a little bit tired of writing if (a = malloc(...) == NULL) { // error code } I mean, is it really possible that a malloc call could fail, except in the case of running out of...
7
by: Rano | last post by:
/* Hello, I've got some troubles with a stupid program... In fact, I just start with the C language and sometime I don't understand how I really have to use malloc. I've readden the FAQ...
20
by: spasmous | last post by:
main() { float * f; initialize_f(f); // ...use f for processing free(f); }
68
by: James Dow Allen | last post by:
The gcc compiler treats malloc() specially! I have no particular question, but it might be fun to hear from anyone who knows about gcc's special behavior. Some may find this post interesting;...
23
by: raphfrk | last post by:
I am having an issue with malloc and gcc. Is there something wrong with my code or is this a compiler bug ? I am running this program: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> typedef...
3
by: Petr Pavlu | last post by:
Hello, I have two questions how the functions should be written. I read the FAQ but didn't find any answer. If there is any please point me out. I. Cleanup code Consider I have to open file1,...
1
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next online meeting of the Access Europe User Group will be on Wednesday 6 Dec 2023 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, Mike...
3
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 3 Jan 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). For other local times, please check World Time Buddy In...
0
by: abbasky | last post by:
### Vandf component communication method one: data sharing ​ Vandf components can achieve data exchange through data sharing, state sharing, events, and other methods. Vandf's data exchange method...
2
by: jimatqsi | last post by:
The boss wants the word "CONFIDENTIAL" overlaying certain reports. He wants it large, slanted across the page, on every page, very light gray, outlined letters, not block letters. I thought Word Art...
2
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 7 Feb 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:30 (7.30PM). In this month's session, the creator of the excellent VBE...
0
by: fareedcanada | last post by:
Hello I am trying to split number on their count. suppose i have 121314151617 (12cnt) then number should be split like 12,13,14,15,16,17 and if 11314151617 (11cnt) then should be split like...
0
by: stefan129 | last post by:
Hey forum members, I'm exploring options for SSL certificates for multiple domains. Has anyone had experience with multi-domain SSL certificates? Any recommendations on reliable providers or specific...
0
Git
by: egorbl4 | last post by:
Скачал я git, хотел начать настройку, а там вылезло вот это Что это? Что мне с этим делать? ...
1
by: davi5007 | last post by:
Hi, Basically, I am trying to automate a field named TraceabilityNo into a web page from an access form. I've got the serial held in the variable strSearchString. How can I get this into the...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.