On Mon, 09 October 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote:
It's good to hear that your assertion failure was fixed,
but your fix sortof doesn't make sense. "osize" is the
correct thing to copy there, because the original memory
region presumably was only "osize" bytes long.
Pardon me if I am being dumb.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 09 October 2000, Archie Cobbs wrote:
It's good to hear that your assertion failure was fixed,
but your fix sortof doesn't make sense. "osize" is the
correct thing to copy there, because the original memory
region presumably was only "osize" bytes long.
Finally it seems like I might have fixed the
assertion failure that has been bothering me
on my Linux/Alpha box.
which assert?
In gcRealloc():kaffe/kaffevm/mem/gc-incremental.c
line 1026 it looks like the size of memcpy should
be size instead of osize. If the osize (original/old
size ?)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Finally it seems like I might have fixed the
assertion failure that has been bothering me
on my Linux/Alpha box.
In gcRealloc():kaffe/kaffevm/mem/gc-incremental.c
line 1026 it looks like the size of memcpy should
be size instead of osize. If the osize
