From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Andreas Schwab Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs Subject: bug#24892: {s, }brk removed from FreeBSD 11.x and later, arm64 architecture Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:52:00 +0100 Message-ID: References: <82a03552-8f33-2dbe-6bb5-54f649b29db7@cs.ucla.edu> <86vavxs2cn.fsf@members.fsf.org> <5adee8d9-8f08-9536-a95f-ae64719d6a0f@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478771624 32439 195.159.176.226 (10 Nov 2016 09:53:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:53:44 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Cc: 24892@debbugs.gnu.org, Ashish SHUKLA To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Nov 10 10:53:40 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2k-0004lC-7l for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 10:53:14 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:45134 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2n-0002rz-DL for geb-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:53:17 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52402) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2e-0002ri-0y for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:53:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2Y-0002P4-Ry for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:53:08 -0500 Original-Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:36251) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2Y-0002Oz-On for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:53:02 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m2Y-0005xg-Cg; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:53:02 -0500 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Resent-From: Andreas Schwab Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:53:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 24892 X-GNU-PR-Package: emacs X-GNU-PR-Keywords: patch Original-Received: via spool by 24892-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B24892.147877152322850 (code B ref 24892); Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:53:02 +0000 Original-Received: (at 24892) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Nov 2016 09:52:03 +0000 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51650 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m1b-0005wU-03 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:52:03 -0500 Original-Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:47615) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c4m1Z-0005w5-Vc for 24892@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 04:52:02 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Original-Received: from relay2.suse.de (charybdis-ext.suse.de [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2A1DACDB; Thu, 10 Nov 2016 09:52:00 +0000 (UTC) X-Yow: I demand IMPUNITY! In-Reply-To: (Paul Eggert's message of "Wed, 9 Nov 2016 09:52:06 -0800") X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 208.118.235.43 X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org List-Id: "Bug reports for GNU Emacs, the Swiss army knife of text editors" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-bounces+geb-bug-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "bug-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:125547 Archived-At: On Nov 09 2016, Paul Eggert wrote: > On 11/09/2016 01:46 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote: >>> If so, what is the difference in value there between sbrk (0) and ((byte >>> >*) old_bss_addr + old_bss_size), in the region of unexelf.c that computes >>> >one or the other? >> The former includes the heap. > > Yes, and I'm curious about what the difference actually is, 17851608 bytes. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE 1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7 "And now for something completely different."