> I wonder if we could reduce binary size with a dead-simple scheduler and GC
For many CLIs I think even a brain-dead bump allocator would work
For many CLIs I think even a brain-dead bump allocator would work
Though, I'm curious... don't a lot of malloc implementations use a bump allocator if a simple fragmentation heuristic is below some limit? Presumably musl down inside malloc() has a static bool (or a static function pointer) it uses to keep track if dlsym() has ever returned the address of free(). How much faster is the musl implementation than an implementation using a simple fragmentation heuristic? Presumably, they're both well-predicted conditional branches (and/or indirect branch targets well predicted by the BTB).