Be my guest to implement these things. I don't think it matters much, and
adds a lot of
complexity to avoid a single roundup call. And if we have more-strict
alignment for
glue than ALIGNBYTES, we're already doomed. We don't do that today.
Warner
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Ian Lepore
On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 11:37 -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, December 28, 2015 01:01:26 PM Warner Losh wrote:
> > I'll look at that, but I don't think posix_memalign is the right
> > way to go.
> > The alignment of FILE is more strict than posix_memalign will
> > return. Ian's
> > idea of
On Tuesday, December 29, 2015 03:51:29 PM Ian Lepore wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-29 at 11:37 -0800, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Monday, December 28, 2015 01:01:26 PM Warner Losh wrote:
> > > I'll look at that, but I don't think posix_memalign is the right
> > > way to go.
> > > The alignment of FILE
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, John Baldwin wrote:
On Monday, December 28, 2015 01:01:26 PM Warner Losh wrote:
I'll look at that, but I don't think posix_memalign is the right way to go.
The alignment of FILE is more strict than posix_memalign will return. Ian's
idea of __alignof__ is the way to go. We
On Monday, December 28, 2015 01:01:26 PM Warner Losh wrote:
> I'll look at that, but I don't think posix_memalign is the right way to go.
> The alignment of FILE is more strict than posix_memalign will return. Ian's
> idea of __alignof__ is the way to go. We allocate them in one block on
> purpose
On Wed, 30 Dec 2015, David Chisnall wrote:
On 30 Dec 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
- C++ apparently spells this as both _Alignof() and alignof() after 2011/03
This is not correct. C++ spells it alignof. C spells it _Alignof, unless you
include , in which case
On 30 Dec 2015, at 00:48, Bruce Evans wrote:
>
> - C++ apparently spells this as both _Alignof() and alignof() after 2011/03
This is not correct. C++ spells it alignof. C spells it _Alignof, unless you
include , in which case C spells it alignof and defines _
On Sunday, December 27, 2015 11:04:12 PM Warner Losh wrote:
> Author: imp
> Date: Sun Dec 27 23:04:11 2015
> New Revision: 292809
> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/292809
>
> Log:
> The FILE structure has a mbstate_t in it. This structure needs to be
> aligned on a int64_t
I'll look at that, but I don't think posix_memalign is the right way to go.
The alignment of FILE is more strict than posix_memalign will return. Ian's
idea of __alignof__ is the way to go. We allocate them in one block on
purpose for performance, and posix_memalign would be a one at a time
Author: imp
Date: Sun Dec 27 23:04:11 2015
New Revision: 292809
URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/292809
Log:
The FILE structure has a mbstate_t in it. This structure needs to be
aligned on a int64_t boundary. However, when we allocate the array of
these structures, we use
10 matches
Mail list logo