From f6647febe5b6a7f5d3c83f35077386a7a0797cd0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josh Soref <2119212+jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2023 18:43:03 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] spelling: the Signed-off-by: Josh Soref <2119212+jsoref@users.noreply.github.com> --- doc/mimalloc-doc.h | 2 +- docs/bench.html | 2 +- 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/mimalloc-doc.h b/doc/mimalloc-doc.h index a8907ee5..df789091 100644 --- a/doc/mimalloc-doc.h +++ b/doc/mimalloc-doc.h @@ -1276,6 +1276,6 @@ range of benchmarks. See the [Performance](https://github.com/microsoft/mimalloc#Performance) section in the _mimalloc_ repository for benchmark results, -or the the technical report for detailed benchmark results. +or the technical report for detailed benchmark results. */ diff --git a/docs/bench.html b/docs/bench.html index d54f5fd6..213ff24b 100644 --- a/docs/bench.html +++ b/docs/bench.html @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ $(document).ready(function(){initNavTree('bench.html',''); initResizable(); });

We tested mimalloc against many other top allocators over a wide range of benchmarks, ranging from various real world programs to synthetic benchmarks that see how the allocator behaves under more extreme circumstances.

In our benchmarks, mimalloc always outperforms all other leading allocators (jemalloc, tcmalloc, Hoard, etc) (Jan 2021), and usually uses less memory (up to 25% more in the worst case). A nice property is that it does consistently well over the wide range of benchmarks.

-

See the Performance section in the mimalloc repository for benchmark results, or the the technical report for detailed benchmark results.

+

See the Performance section in the mimalloc repository for benchmark results, or the technical report for detailed benchmark results.