From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: USE_LSB_TAG and MS-DOS Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 18:31:03 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <20040517223103.GD6421@fencepost> References: <2719-Sat15May2004150718+0300-eliz@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084833333 27529 80.91.224.253 (17 May 2004 22:35:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 22:35:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Tue May 18 00:35:26 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BPqhi-00042w-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 00:35:26 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BPqhh-0007Q4-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 00:35:25 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BPqgI-0003I8-Ec for emacs-devel@quimby.gnus.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:33:58 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BPqgD-0003HF-2i for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:33:53 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BPqdy-0002VQ-Je for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:32:06 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BPqdY-0002MS-4W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:31:08 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1BPqdT-0006AO-Ah; Mon, 17 May 2004 18:31:03 -0400 Original-To: Stefan Monnier Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+emacs-devel=quimby.gnus.org@gnu.org Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:23600 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:23600 On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:22:15PM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: > No, the code is currently not using memalign. The use of memalign would > only be for cases where malloc is not known to return > multiple-of-8 pointers. We should be very careful though -- because historically things like memalign were implemented as dumb wrappers around malloc, they can behave very badly; here's what the GNU Libc manual says: With the GNU library, you can use `free' to free the blocks that `memalign', `posix_memalign', and `valloc' return. That does not work in BSD, however--BSD does not provide any way to free such blocks. I think memalign should only be used for specific system types where we know it's implemented in a reasonable manner. -Miles -- We have met the enemy, and he is us. -- Pogo