On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 02:26:59PM +0100, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:58:36AM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> > Willy, can you push the attached patch ?
>
> Applied, thanks. I've just slightly edited it to put parenthesis around
> "i" below :
>
> > +#define round_ptr_size(i
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 11:58:36AM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Willy, can you push the attached patch ?
Applied, thanks. I've just slightly edited it to put parenthesis around
"i" below :
> +#define round_ptr_size(i) ((i + (sizeof(void *) - 1)) &~ (sizeof(void *) -
> 1))
so that if someone
On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 09:48:20AM +, Paul Martin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 06:05:00PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
>
> > Oops, you're right indeed.
> > I'm not sure I'm a big fan of special-casing STD_T_UINT. For example,
> > STD_T_FRQP is probably 12bytes too, so it'd be a problem.
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 06:05:00PM +0100, Olivier Houchard wrote:
> Oops, you're right indeed.
> I'm not sure I'm a big fan of special-casing STD_T_UINT. For example,
> STD_T_FRQP is probably 12bytes too, so it'd be a problem.
> Can you test the (untested, but hopefully right) patch attached ?
Ye
Hi Paul,
On Wed, Nov 14, 2018 at 03:33:02PM +, Paul Martin wrote:
> Atomic operations on aarch64 (arm64) have to be aligned to 8 byte
> boundaries (same size as a pointer type), otherwise a SIGBUS is raised.
>
> Because the variable ts here isn't guaranteed to be aligned due to the
> various
5 matches
Mail list logo