Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2003/06/22/03:21:54
Guys,
Can you please change the subject on the next response as this has nothing
to do with the LIBM patch.
Thanks,
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: "CBFalconer" <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
To: <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2003 2:27 PM
Subject: Re: LIBM patch for GCC 3.3 - math changes
> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > From: CBFalconer <cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com>
> > >
> > > BTW I have heard nothing about the use of hooks/malldbg with
> > > memalign etc. I referred to in another thread.
> >
> > I think we don't need any more hooks beyond those in malloc and
> > friends.
>
> It may be necessary to put them in if only for consistency. The
> end result of memalign will be the equivalent of a malloc, so if
> we want to catch arena errors etc. as early as possible the hooks
> will need to be there. The arena dump (mallocmap) and data from
> mallinfo will naturally include the effects from memalign. The
> hooks could ignore the alignment parameter easily and just use the
> actual malloc hooks - the only penalty I can see is that the user
> may be dumbfounded as to why it failed (i.e. non-power-of-2
> alignment parameter, or no suitable free space left).
>
> The routine is a real pain. I think memalign should also fail for
> alignment parameter < ALIGN value (i.e. 8 at present).
>
> --
> Chuck F (cbfalconer AT yahoo DOT com) (cbfalconer AT worldnet DOT att DOT net)
> Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
> <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
>
>
>
- Raw text -