On Thursday, 16 August 2007 05:53, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On 8/15/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You can malloc as much as you wish at initialization directly into
> > > the pointers... I just don't understand what may go wrong if you do
> > > this...
> >
> > Nothing, really
> On 8/15/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You can malloc as much as you wish at initialization directly into
> > > the pointers... I just don't understand what may go wrong if you do
> > > this...
> >
> > Nothing, really. I prefer to have two global pointers and one contigu
On 8/15/07, Rafael J. Wysocki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can malloc as much as you wish at initialization directly into
> > the pointers... I just don't understand what may go wrong if you do this...
>
> Nothing, really. I prefer to have two global pointers and one contiguous
> memory area
On Saturday, 4 August 2007 14:35, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> On Saturday 04 August 2007, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
> >
> > Hello Rafael,
> >
> > This is *UNTESTED* suggestion for switching into lzo without the memcpy.
> > Please see if I missed something as I the code combination of global
> > variables,
>
On Saturday 04 August 2007, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
>
> Hello Rafael,
>
> This is *UNTESTED* suggestion for switching into lzo without the memcpy.
> Please see if I missed something as I the code combination of global
> variables,
> local memory pool and unrelated sizes is difficult to understand/ma
