I found this online: http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?posix_memalign.
Note in particular, "For all three routines, the memory is not zeroed."
Regarding the lack of "man memalign," have you tried texinfo instead?
(There isn't a linux machine handy right now so I can't check myself.)
--Andy
At 11:00 PM +0200 5/27/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 8:03 PM +0200 5/27/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
... . We need some tests, from which size memory is
cleard for malloc and memalign.
I tossed the memset for now and saved ~450.000 L2-misses or ~0.2 s.
Whi
At 9:31 PM -0700 5/27/03, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Dan" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Dan> Now, this book is on a tight schedule and, as such, went through a
Dan> small tech edit phase. The more people you have the longer it takes,
Dan> and this was moving reasonably quickly
At 5:43 PM +0200 5/28/03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
... . We need some tests, from which size memory is
cleard for malloc and memalign.
Here is a small program, which could be put into a test.
Are there systems out there, without memalign, where malloc.c ca
Appended is a refined version of #22337 which it obsoletes.
Key features are:
1) DOD flags (live, on_free_list, ...) are kept in the arenas, 1 nibble
per object
2) arena memory is aquired per memalign() to be able to calculate arena
from object address
3) free_list is per arena now
4) PMC size i
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ..\..\imcc\imcc -Op1 -d60 err.imc
Please note: -Op does optimize PASM code, that wouldn't get optimized
else. For .imc files just using -O1 suffices.
> Bug #1:
> Issues the error message (now a warning, but probably a problem nontheless):
>
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It appears JIT is entirely broken. It broke recently, as it was
> working well for me just a couple days ago.
> I'm running i686 (P3) Linux, gcc-3.2.2
> I get segfaults with both imcc -Oj and parrot -j (with assemble.pl) on
> mandel.pasm and a bunch of o
# New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce"
# Please include the string: [perl #22360]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22360 >
(Low priority, more an annoyance than anything.)
When the message of the form:
# New Ticket Created by "Clinton A. Pierce"
# Please include the string: [perl #22359]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22359 >
The IMCC optimizer run with these options:
..\..\imcc\imcc -Op1 -d60 err
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 11:13, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> >
> >Is there is reason not to s/\.constant/.const/g for consistency's sake?
>
> And actually, on further consideration, .const isn't what I want
> either.
Which doesn't invalidate my question. :-)
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail
On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 19:03, Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Our current problem is, that we have two assemblers and two PBC formats.
> Keeping all in sync till now ends obviously at test level.
The perl assembler was never intended to be the permanent solution.
Rather, in typical Perl fashion, to get s
On Wed, 28 May 2003, Luke Palmer wrote:
> I get segfaults with both imcc -Oj and parrot -j (with assemble.pl) on
> mandel.pasm and a bunch of others.
I've noticed a number of these as well (linuxppc, gcc3.3), but then again
I've been tweaking my copy of the JIT. I get these failures:
Failed Tes
# New Ticket Created by Luke Palmer
# Please include the string: [perl #22353]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22353 >
It appears JIT is entirely broken. It broke recently, as it was
working well for me just
Luke Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
> problem down to Parrot::Packfile thinking that the size of the
> bytecode segment is zero. However, it works fine when I use
> assemble.pl to compile; the problem only arises when I com
# New Ticket Created by Luke Palmer
# Please include the string: [perl #22352]
# in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue.
# http://rt.perl.org/rt2/Ticket/Display.html?id=22352 >
I've been trying to run pbc2c.pl, and it's been dying. I traced the
problem down to Parr
Daniel Grunblatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 27 May 2003 21:25, Bill Atkins wrote:
>> Am I correct in assuming that Parrot's JIT will eventually be able to
>> produce directly-executable files, like .exe's?
> Yes, you are.
Anything, what I might have missed? JIT 2?
> Daniel.
leo
Clinton A. Pierce <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And actually, on further consideration, .const isn't what I want
> either.
You are looking vor .sym/.local:
.local PerlHash BASICARR
.sub _main
BASICARR = new PerlHash
.arg "value"
.arg "x"
call _DIMENSION
.ar
Very possibly old and useless but in the grand tradition of piping up
with ideas which may or may not be useful -
http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/CheneyMTA.html
being a paper on filling the C stack completely thus saving on some GC
amongst other things.
The paper explains it much better.
Si
Leopold Toetsch wrote:
> Mitchell N Charity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps it is time to get "multiple gc regimes can coexist" working?
>
> Sounds good, but AFAIK doesn't work - or isn't practical. I can only
> imagine to have some #defines in place, to switch/test different
> schemes, as
Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>... . We need some tests, from which size memory is
>>>cleard for malloc and memalign.
Here is a small program, which could be put into a test.
Are there systems out there, without memalign, where malloc.c can not be
linked with?
/*
* test clean me
At 11:13 AM 5/28/2003 -0400, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
# These are vastly simplified, but give you the idea
And of course, by "vastly simplified" I meant "completely wrong" because
the sample shown won't work because of the saveall and restoreall before
and after the array creation in _DIMENSION.
At 05:45 PM 5/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:
On Tue, 2003-05-27 at 08:01, Clinton A. Pierce wrote:
> At 11:57 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, Will Coleda wrote:
> >Perhaps "macros only work in assembler mode" is the issue?
> >
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/msg14107.html
> >
> >Regards.
>
> It was
On Tuesday 27 May 2003 21:25, Bill Atkins wrote:
> Am I correct in assuming that Parrot's JIT will eventually be able to
> produce directly-executable files, like .exe's?
Yes, you are.
>
> Bill
Daniel.
23 matches
Mail list logo
