Dear Mr / Ms, Would it be possible to have "both" , and then have it switchable/chosen by a compiler option / pragma etc ... ?
Met vriendelijke groet ESSAISSI, Rémi Julien On Tuesday, 06-10-2015 at 19:07 Henry Hallam wrote: My uses do not require malloc() to be reentrant, and I favor the lower interrupt latency and potentially smaller code/ram footprint of the simpler malloc(). Thanks, Henry On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:35 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote: > We are planning to replace SDCC'c current two memory allocators by a new > one. In one of the curent two (used in mcs51, ds390, hc08) malloc() and > friends code is in a critical section, in the other, it is not. > > We have not yet decided which way the new allocator should go here. > > Advantages of critical section inside malloc(): malloc() can be called > from interrupt handlers, multiple threads from OSses without any support > on the OS side. > Advantages of malloc() not having critical sections: Lower interupt > latency, since malloc() can then be interrupted. > > When malloc() does not have critical sections, it is still possible to > get the advantages and disadvatages by wrapping all calls to malloc() in > critical sections (like e.g. the pvPortMalloc from FreeRTOS does). > > Philipp > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Sdcc-user mailing list > Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Sdcc-user mailing list Sdcc-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sdcc-user
