X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=l9ZFzxSiXzUQL+6YeSjIpCUwwwJ2mRvnzW8mkMsfsGE=;
	b=Z0+r9R86aaocHfbF7/fPoVXuYdz6/MZkrGRmVjdEzMoSZN+e+ZdKb3xCbSsoEzJ3Sz
	EOBdebw+/e6MQK+bifSZNN+vBidOAeaVw94ogmXhoGmONULGjl95S+bq7NRHaP9nNksM
	wJBbl3SCPmKtKM+2Iu6ExsCPahcXUBU4JXqkKAnTL/U0R+LUtaCmyLU6tbYAecvBEhye
	Ks5chGL2ZgQH9U8qwdRvzPh5fkjBfC2A423cWSoJ2HzAEVq0n1jyc5Nm+HITVzc+nLw1
	UiANp3aavp83lUkpnu9txrDdz1aGjE+uYaZ+GXR9yhF8I0XzQxCUKC/GmWyWJVog8YTK
	WCXg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.50.136.168 with SMTP id qb8mr16677930igb.13.1398003348306;
	Sun, 20 Apr 2014 07:15:48 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<5353CE51.2010801@gmx.de>
References:	<53492C99 DOT 7090109 AT iki DOT fi>
	<5353CE51 DOT 2010801 AT gmx DOT de>
Date:	Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:15:48 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vC9AX+nXsvo-XWarQFpn8+XVg=hXA+DVBPG=pUqBQqUfw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: gcc-4.9.0 20140411 snapshot for DJGPP
From:	Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
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 4/20/14, Juan Manuel Guerrero <juan DOT guerrero AT gmx DOT de> wrote:
> Am 12.04.2014 14:07, schrieb Andris Pavenis:
>> Yesterday gcc-4_9-branch was created and gcc-4.9.0 prerelease
>> was made available. That means that actual gcc-4.9.0 is near:
>>
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-04/msg00091.html
>>
>> My build of snapshot from gcc-4_9-branch is available at
>>
>> http://ap1.pp.fi/djgpp/gcc/test/4.9.0-20140411/
>>
>> I did some testing for C++:
>> - built cln-1.3.2 and run its test. All works out of box as earlier
>> - built GiNaC (www.ginac.de). Builds out of box. Some tests seem
>>   to run extremely slowly. I suspect that DJGPP v2.04 slow free() is
>> biting.
>>
>> Of course it bootstraps OK (except of getting stuck once while
>> configuring libstdc++-v3: it happens randomly in the same place
>> when building under Windows Vista, I do not know why).
>>
>> About DJGPP v2.04 slow free(): I have used nmalloc for building gcc
>> already for a long time as gcc allocates and frees large number of
>> memory blocks and DJGPP v2.04 own memory management is too slow.
>>
>> Perhaps it could be time use nmalloc for DJGPP libc.
>>
>> Andris
>>
>
> Have you ever managed to merge nmalloc into your local CVS repository?
> IIRC I have tried a year ago but I failed.  I did not really understood how
> djgpp's malloc worked and I also did not understood how nmalloc worked
> so it was impossible to me to replace one with the other and I gave up.
> If you have merged the code you can send me a patch and I will try the
> nmalloc changes with some code of mine.
>
> Regards,
> Juan M. Guerrero
>

If everyone is unhappy with it, why don't we go back to 2.03's malloc first,
and then try to merge nmalloc ?

--
O.S.

- Raw text -