From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 20:35:43 +0300 Message-ID: <83r377m0i8.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <838ttfnmev.fsf@gnu.org> <837f8znk8f.fsf@gnu.org> <83zilvm2ud.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477244200 22975 195.159.176.226 (23 Oct 2016 17:36:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 17:36:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 23 19:36:37 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@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 1byMh5-00043B-SL for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 19:36:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:41885 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMh8-0007V3-9g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:36:26 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMgW-0007U5-Hx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:35:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMgV-0005tc-PW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:35:48 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:36853) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byMgV-0005tS-MZ; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:35:47 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3235 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1byMgU-000747-Ke; Sun, 23 Oct 2016 13:35:47 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Stefan Monnier on Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:49:29 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208635 Archived-At: > From: Stefan Monnier > Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2016 12:49:29 -0400 > > >> > I don't think we ever used such a configuration. Is modern sbrk good > >> > enough for gmalloc? > >> Why not? > > "Why not" is never a useful answer. > > It just means that I really see no reason why it wouldn't work just fine. > It's not like glibc's malloc was particularly magical, so we should be > able to do the same in gmalloc.c. AAIK, glibc's malloc doesn't use sbrk anymore.