Cleaned up C++

[ponce via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 24 April 2015 at 08:16:40 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/24/2015 12:23 AM, John Colvin wrote:
>> Except of course that alloca is a lot cheaper than malloc/free.
>
> That's not necessarily true. But in any case, go ahead and use 
> it if you like. Just prepare to benchmark and be disappointed 
> :-)

Do you have a guess for why and when it could not be faster than 
malloc in times?
I have some difficulty imagining a reason (yet I have sometimes 
found malloc faster than aligned_malloc which is another odd 
thing).