X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f From: CBFalconer Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: libstdc++ writev/2.04/patches upstream? Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:55:33 -0400 Organization: Ched Research http://cbfalconer.home.att.net Lines: 42 Message-ID: <488270E5.84BCCBF5@yahoo.com> References: <200807070405 DOT m67451dZ010910 AT delorie DOT com> <200807071920 DOT m67JKA4v032518 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <487290E2 DOT 86197C00 AT yahoo DOT com> <200807072300 DOT m67N0t0Y005696 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <4872DFDB DOT 3E4BE7C1 AT yahoo DOT com> <200807080501 DOT m6851VZ8015818 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <4873E90E DOT B2B957F9 AT yahoo DOT com> <48742FD3 DOT 4080701 AT iki DOT fi> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: feeder.motzarella.org U2FsdGVkX18yNIpTpWEi7abl6zXQuJp/mvbjDo+j//Kims/hgzQy6WBIoKIiUJS1W8GSHi+bE68M2ko7rf9fGYfw/2gnIBeJ4XlkaPHXaiIQjEuS+qU2ONqhyPZzZ0CD5S7s7dTXJkfudqJkCX/j9g== X-Complaints-To: Please send complaints to abuse AT motzarella DOT org with full headers NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:09:41 +0000 (UTC) X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX188h1U7e3rcvwZWYB3644Z5jjg3S8jq+adcyJhs1aKB2A== Cancel-Lock: sha1:/gDRvkYoc2Do1WN8bdRCusEok50= To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Andris Pavenis wrote: > ... snip ... > > The first message of the thread is > > http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/mail-archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2007/12/05/17:54:46 > > I included there the source of my initial test program used for > profiling. Remove shuffling addresses and freeing memory, link it > with nmalloc and You will get what I use for testing when large > enough number of allocations were specified (like more that > 1000000, You should have plenty of memory for that). This test > program randomly crashed when linked with nmalloc and never for > me if with DJGPP v2.04 own malloc (for this test slowness of > free() does not matter of course). > > I do not know whether it is possible to reproduce the problem on > system different from WinXP. I have heard nothing back since my earlier replies about this message. I reported that the system doesn't compile or link, depending on the parameters given to gcc. I believe the basic problem is mixing the use of new/dispose with malloc/free. This can't be properly evaluated without pulling down the whole C++ library system, or installing the revised malloc as a portion of the C++ library. That won't work if the C++ system makes malloc depend on new. As I see it you are generating a herd of mallocs with randomized sizes, mixing them up, and then freeing all of them. I have performed other tests that effectively do this, with no problems. If I am correct I am even willing to write a C test routine to do it, avoiding the mixing problems. -- [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) [page]: Try the download section.