Thanks for catching that. I'll take a look and commit a fix real
soon now.
Brian
On Dec 8, 2005, at 11:03 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:59:46AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:40:51AM -0500,
On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
Hopefully this made some sense. If not, on to the next round of e-
mails :).
This made allot of sense. What is compiled by default now is malloc_hooks
I'll compile ptmalloc and play with
On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:59:46AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
> On Dec 8, 2005, at 9:27 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
> >> Hopefully this made some sense. If not, on to the next round of e-
> >> mails :).
> >>
> > This made allot of
On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 10:40:51AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
> Hopefully this made some sense. If not, on to the next round of e-
> mails :).
>
This made allot of sense. What is compiled by default now is malloc_hooks
I'll compile ptmalloc and play with it and may be then will be the next
On Dec 7, 2005, at 9:44 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:07:44AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
Also memfree hooks decrease cache efficiency, the better solution
On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 11:07:44AM -0500, Brian Barrett wrote:
> On Dec 6, 2005, at 10:53 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 08:33:32AM -0700, Tim S. Woodall wrote:
> >>> Also memfree hooks decrease cache efficiency, the better solution
> >>> would
> >>> be to catch brk()
