On Thu, 2006-05-18 at 07:50, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] OpenSM: Use memory routines directly and eliminate > > cl_mem* routines > > > > On Wed, 2006-05-17 at 18:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > Quoting r. Hal Rosenstock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > Right now, there is memory > > > > tracking code implemented. > > > > > > Doesn't MALLOC_CHECK_ do what you want? > > > > Yes, this looks good to me. Just a few questions: > > > > Is this in all glibc's that we would care about ? > > I think it's been there since the dawn of time :) > > > I'm also not sure about the Windows implications here. Maybe Eitan can > > comment. > > MSDN says: > > "When the application is linked with a debug version of the C run-time > libraries, malloc resolves to _malloc_dbg. For more information about how the > heap is managed during the debugging process, see Using C Run-Time Library > Debugging Support."
Sounds good to me. So any final objections to eliminating cl_malloc/free and all the memory tracking code in OpenSM ? Speak now... -- Hal _______________________________________________ openib-general mailing list [email protected] http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
