X-Git-Url: https://git.llucax.com/personal/website.git/blobdiff_plain/9b91d44c7594709f7502995d06b3d897164056a1..2270f1fb21528602c4053cfca0c1d109088b5ddf:/source/blog/posts/2010/08/14-memory-allocation-patterns.rst

diff --git a/source/blog/posts/2010/08/14-memory-allocation-patterns.rst b/source/blog/posts/2010/08/14-memory-allocation-patterns.rst
index e2a5827..d3b8ec0 100644
--- a/source/blog/posts/2010/08/14-memory-allocation-patterns.rst
+++ b/source/blog/posts/2010/08/14-memory-allocation-patterns.rst
@@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ affected by changes like `memory addresses returned by the OS`__ or by
 some information about how much and what kind of memory are requested by the
 different benchmarks.
 
-__ http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/-7a56a111
-__ http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/1490c03e
+__ /blog/blog/post/-7a56a111
+__ /blog/blog/post/1490c03e
 
 I used the information provided by the ``malloc_stats_file`` CDGC__ option, and
 generated some stats.
 
-__ http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/-2c067531
+__ /blog/blog/post/-2c067531
 
 The analysis is done on the allocations requested by the program (calls to
 ``gc_malloc()``) and contrasting that with the real memory allocated by the GC.
@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ of the blocks). So the idea here is to measure two major things:
 * The extra amount of memory wasted by the GC when using precise mode because it
   stores the type information pointer at the end of the blocks.
 
-__ http://www.llucax.com.ar/blog/blog/post/250bf643
+__ /blog/blog/post/250bf643
 
 I've selected a few representative benchmarks. Here are the results: