On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Jul 27, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that
> sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array of foo,
>
> and
On 07/27/2018 06:43 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/26/2018 06:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>>
>> FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
>> FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
>>
>> How strong of a
On Jul 27, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that
> sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array of foo,
>
> and the array must guarantee alignment of each element in the
On Mon, 30 Jul 2018, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 26/07/18 12:45 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> > The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
> > 'substitute a different' ?
>
> The usual way to replace 'malloc' is via ELF symbol interposition:
>
On 26/07/18 22:34 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
http://www.erahm.org/2016/03/24/minimum-alignment-of-allocation-across-platforms/
Oh dear, this is worrying.
I'm adding more places in libstdc++ where the std::lib assumes that
memory obtained from malloc will always be aligned to
On 26/07/18 12:45 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
packagers not to interpose malloc.
The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
'substitute a different' ?
The
On 07/27/2018 16:58 UTC, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 13:44 UTC, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/27/2018 13:33 UTC, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that
sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array of foo,
and the array must guarantee alignment of each element in the
Jan Kratochvil writes:
> So why glibc greated an N+1 allocator (by DJ Delorie) instead of just
> importing/using tcmalloc (which is license-compatible with glibc)?
I didn't create an N+1 allocator. We're still using the Doug Lea
allocator from ancient times. My recent work added a relatively
On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that
> sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array of foo,
>
> and the array must guarantee alignment of each element in the array.
>>
>
> Why do you think that? If some
On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:
On 07/27/2018 08:21 UTC, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/27/2018 05:10 AM, John Reiser wrote:
Always requiring 16-byte alignment on x86_64 can waste too much space
due to internal fragmentation. The rule should be:
The required alignment is at least
On 07/27/2018 08:21 UTC, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/27/2018 05:10 AM, John Reiser wrote:
Always requiring 16-byte alignment on x86_64 can waste too much space
due to internal fragmentation. The rule should be:
The required alignment is at least min(16, max_p2_divisor_of_size)
where
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:14:14 +0200, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> Bug 1430223 - In some conditions, tcmalloc memalign will segfault
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430223
It looks as a tcmalloc bug which could be fixed; it also has been probably
fixed in the meantime as stated there.
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:43:06 +0200, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> # dnf repoquery --whatrequires 'libjemalloc.so.2()(64bit)'
> 389-ds-base-devel-0:1.4.0.11-2.fc28.x86_64
> blender-1:2.79b-2.fc28.x86_64
> blender-1:2.79b-3.fc28.x86_64
> blenderplayer-1:2.79b-2.fc28.x86_64
>
On 07/26/2018 06:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
How strong of a restriction are you looking for? This sort of feels
like something which would
On 07/27/2018 05:10 AM, John Reiser wrote:
Always requiring 16-byte alignment on x86_64 can waste too much space
due to internal fragmentation. The rule should be:
The required alignment is at least min(16, max_p2_divisor_of_size)
where the second argument max_p2_divisor_of_size is the
Dne 26.7.2018 v 20:58 Carlos O'Donell napsal(a):
> On 07/26/2018 12:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Dne 26.7.2018 v 18:03 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
"FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>>> FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
>>> FW> advising packagers not
* We have resources to support glibc malloc, but not for other mallocs.
* Other mallocs do not follow ABI and provide insufficient alignment.
* Choosing a malloc is workload-dependent and forcing a non-default
malloc takes options away from system administrators.
Could you please mention a
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > Could you please mention a couple of bugs where this is shown?
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237260
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303323
>
On 07/26/2018 06:45 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
packagers not to interpose malloc.
The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
'substitute a different' ?
The
On 07/26/2018 12:45 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
>> packagers not to interpose malloc.
>
> The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
> 'substitute a different'
On 07/26/2018 12:24 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 26.7.2018 v 18:03 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>>> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>> FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
>> FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
>>
>> How strong of a restriction
On Thu, 26 Jul 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
> packagers not to interpose malloc.
The use here of 'interpose' is unclear to me -- are you saying
'substitute a different' ?
> The reasons are:
>
> * We have resources to
On 07/26/2018 11:43 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:32:32PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
I would like to request a change of the Packaging
Dne 26.7.2018 v 18:03 Jason L Tibbitts III napsal(a):
>> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
> FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
> FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
>
> How strong of a restriction are you looking for? This sort of feels
> like
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 11:03:08AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
>
> FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
> FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
>
> How strong of a restriction are you looking for? This sort of
> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes:
FW> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines,
FW> advising packagers not to interpose malloc.
How strong of a restriction are you looking for? This sort of feels
like something which would at the strongest be a "SHOULD NOT" but maybe
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 04:37:33PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:32:32PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
> > > packagers not to
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:32 PM Igor Gnatenko <
ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
>> packagers not to interpose malloc.
>>
>> The reasons are:
>>
>> * We
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 05:32:32PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> > I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
> > packagers not to interpose malloc.
> >
> > The reasons are:
> >
> > * We have resources to
On Thu, Jul 26, 2018 at 5:29 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
> packagers not to interpose malloc.
>
> The reasons are:
>
> * We have resources to support glibc malloc, but not for other mallocs.
> * Other mallocs do not follow
I would like to request a change of the Packaging Guidelines, advising
packagers not to interpose malloc.
The reasons are:
* We have resources to support glibc malloc, but not for other mallocs.
* Other mallocs do not follow ABI and provide insufficient alignment.
* Choosing a malloc is
31 matches
Mail list logo
