From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Aligned blocks management: obsolete? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:34:57 -0400 Message-ID: References: <4EE5B744.1090103@yandex.ru> <4EE60A93.9060401@yandex.ru> <4EE6478C.1020701@cs.ucla.edu> <4FE0ADFC.9090504@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340141719 10421 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2012 21:35:19 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 21:35:19 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Paul Eggert , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Antipov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 19 23:35:18 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh64w-0001dN-Hi for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 23:35:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44484 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh64w-0005iZ-FM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:35:14 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52854) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh64t-0005fz-Tf for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:35:13 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh64s-000158-7z for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:35:11 -0400 Original-Received: from chene.dit.umontreal.ca ([132.204.246.20]:58960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh64s-000133-4P for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:35:10 -0400 Original-Received: from pastel.home (lechon.iro.umontreal.ca [132.204.27.242]) by chene.dit.umontreal.ca (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id q5JLYwEt018074; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:34:58 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id 1A384592CA; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:34:57 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <4FE0ADFC.9090504@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Antipov's message of "Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:51:08 +0400") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1.50 (gnu/linux) X-NAI-Spam-Flag: NO X-NAI-Spam-Threshold: 5 X-NAI-Spam-Score: 0 X-NAI-Spam-Rules: 1 Rules triggered RV4255=0 X-NAI-Spam-Version: 2.2.0.9309 : core <4255> : streams <770625> : uri <1143758> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 132.204.246.20 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151033 Archived-At: > I believe this becomes more and more actual because more and more > of ancient systems with poor malloc implementations falls into their > graves; this cleanup assumes that every malloc implementation > has reasonably efficient posix_memalign or memalign at least. AFAIK, while posix_memalign might be useable in general, the old memalign is not because it can't be free'd (it can with glibc's memalign but not with all memaligns). > Does the implementation of these in gmalloc.c satisfy the "reasonably > efficient" requirement? If not, platforms that use gmalloc.c will be > in trouble. I remember looking into it, back then, but I can't remember what I fount out ;-) Stefan