delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
Date: | Sat, 13 Jan 2001 12:12:28 +0200 |
From: | "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> |
Sender: | halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il |
To: | "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com> |
Message-Id: | <5137-Sat13Jan2001121228+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> |
X-Mailer: | Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.6 |
CC: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
In-reply-to: | <3A5E1168.31413.E8B6A2@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com) |
Subject: | Re: memalign & valloc patch v2 |
References: | <3A5E1168 DOT 31413 DOT E8B6A2 AT localhost> |
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 |
> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com> > Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001 20:02:48 -0500 > > However, all attempts to deal with releasing the space between the malloc'ed > pointer and the aligned pointer (in the memalign context) when the space is > < 8 have not passed the gcc test so far. Any ideas on how to somehow free up > this space? Speaking for myself, I don't think I understand the problem (not surprisingly, since I never looked at this issue close enough). Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more on the tests gcc does in these failing cases, and why does it fail?
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |