rpl...@apache.org wrote:
Author: rpluem
Date: Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
New Revision: 761662
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=761662&view=rev
Log:
* Correctly setup size field for the final_blocks field.
Modified:
apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
Modified: apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c
URL:
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c?rev=761662&r1=761661&r2=761662&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c (original)
+++ apr/apr/trunk/memory/unix/apr_pools.c Fri Apr 3 13:13:26 2009
@@ -825,6 +825,7 @@
pool->blocks = &pool->final_block;
pool->blocks->offset = 0;
pool->blocks->next = NULL;
+ pool->blocks->size = BLOCK_LIST_ENTRIES_MIN;
Right.
However the entire final_block is complete waste of
space if the pool wasn't created explicitly with it's own
allocator using apr_pool_create_ex.
And the sole purpose of it is to allocate the mutex.
Since mutex creation calls few apr_palloc an
additional malloc for making the block_lists dynamic
would make no difference.
Regards
--
^(TM)
