[Reply for reference, reflecting offline discussions] Quanah Gibson-Mount writes: >> sl_malloc.c 1.67 -> 1.68 >> zn_malloc.c 1.14 -> 1.15 >> Gentler message when falling back to ch_malloc > > The new error message doesn't make sense, English wise. It doesn't even > parse. > > - "slap_sl_malloc of %lu bytes failed, using ch_malloc\n", > + "slap_sl_malloc of %lu bytes falling back to ch_malloc\n",
Looks fine to me, but maybe I wrote "English in Norwegian". <<slap_sl_malloc> <of %lu bytes>> <<falling back> <to ch_malloc>>. Anyway, removing the English words fixes the problem since it's just a trace message of little interest to users. > Which really gives the end user no idea what is wrong. Yes, since nothing is wrong yet the message claimed it failed, so people were asking what's wrong. Unless ch_malloc also fails, then it might help a little to see that it came from e.g. slap_sl_malloc of 18446744073709550382 bytes. -- Hallvard
