Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@rek.tjls.com> writes:
> Um, just *when* was it noted that it was "faster"?  It was never faster; it
> can't have been faster; it will never be as fast; the old malloc was
> a totally mindless powers-of-two allocator, which is about as fast
> as you can get.

It can be faster -- if it stops you from trying to use more RAM than you've
got...

Perry