From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Aligned blocks management: obsolete? Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:13:12 +0300 Message-ID: <83zk7zcjiv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4EE5B744.1090103@yandex.ru> <4EE60A93.9060401@yandex.ru> <4EE6478C.1020701@cs.ucla.edu> <4FE0ADFC.9090504@yandex.ru> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340126046 15464 80.91.229.3 (19 Jun 2012 17:14:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 17:14:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Antipov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Jun 19 19:14:05 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 1Sh20C-000215-Ir for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 19:14:04 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:56129 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh20C-00026a-GT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:14:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:60409) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh204-00025Q-LJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:14:02 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh1zy-00074i-EP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:13:56 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il ([80.179.55.166]:36254) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Sh1zy-00071z-61 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 13:13:50 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M5V00E00JTLJV00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:13:00 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M5V00D8FJTOLNJ0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:13:00 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <4FE0ADFC.9090504@yandex.ru> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 80.179.55.166 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:151026 Archived-At: > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 20:51:08 +0400 > From: Dmitry Antipov > Cc: Paul Eggert > > this cleanup assumes that every malloc implementation > has reasonably efficient posix_memalign or memalign at least. Does the implementation of these in gmalloc.c satisfy the "reasonably efficient" requirement? If not, platforms that use gmalloc.c will be in trouble.