| delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
| Date: | Sun, 7 Jan 2001 08:25:52 +0200 (IST) |
| From: | Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
| X-Sender: | eliz AT is |
| To: | "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com> |
| cc: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Subject: | Re: valloc and memalign draft |
| In-Reply-To: | <3A55C132.12287.6F26E9@localhost> |
| Message-ID: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010107082143.21289C-100000@is> |
| MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
| Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
| X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
On Fri, 5 Jan 2001, Mark E. wrote: > + /* Temporarily clear chunk-in-use bit so macros work correctly. */ > + b1->size &= ~1; Isn't this a bit dangerous? Doesn't it leave the malloc chain in an inconsistent state, for a small window of opportunities? What if some signal (i.e. exception) strikes between this line and where you restore the bit, and the code run from the signal handler calls memalign?
| webmaster | delorie software privacy |
| Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |