Author: F. Huber
Date: 07:22:36 12/12/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 12, 2003 at 04:19:32, martin fierz wrote: >hi franz, > >i assume you are now using those virtualalloc functions instead of malloc? i >found sometimes that this can make a performance difference, i don't remember it >being 10%, but still - you could try replacing the virtualalloc with malloc >again and see whether that is (part of) the problem. although, i found this on >an intel CPU... >of course, if you don't use virtualalloc you have this limitation of 256MB. > >cheers > martin Hello Martin, no - this AMD-slowdown problem has definitely nothing to do with your hint about ´VirtualAlloc´, it has already occured _before_ I´ve tried to solve this 256MB problem at all. Your suggestion to use ´VirtualAlloc´ instead of ´malloc´ was really fantastic, and it works without any problems here on my Win98 system. :-) (So there´s absolutely no need to take it back again) But this _new_ problem seems much harder to solve ... :-( Best regards, Franz.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.