------- Additional Comments From ebotcazou at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-31
17:27 -------
> You're replacing both sizeof(mallocArea_) and sizeof(mallocArea_*) with
> a size based on sizeof(mallocArea_*) roundup up to the byte-version of
> BIGGEST_ALIGNMENT. OK, I ssee that mallocArea is itself a pointer, so
> in both cases the sizes you're replacing are the same. In any case, it
> looks as though this patch is safe; at worst, we allocate some more memory.
Wait a minute... I didn't see that the original code (that is Bud's patch)
contains a mix of sizeof(mallocArea_) and sizeof(mallocArea_*). This looks
bogus to me, especially:
@@ -388,6 +377,7 @@ malloc_new_inpool_ (mallocPool pool, mal
void *ptr;
mallocArea_ a;
unsigned short i;
+ mallocArea_ *temp;
if (pool == NULL)
pool = malloc_pool_image ();
@@ -397,11 +387,14 @@ malloc_new_inpool_ (mallocPool pool, mal
|| malloc_pool_find_ (pool, malloc_pool_image ()));
#endif
- ptr = malloc_new_ (s + (i = (MALLOC_DEBUG ? strlen (name) + 1 : 0)));
+ ptr = malloc_new_ (sizeof(mallocArea_*) + s + (i = (MALLOC_DEBUG ? strlen
(name) + 1 : 0)));
#if MALLOC_DEBUG
strcpy (((char *) (ptr)) + s, name);
#endif
a = malloc_new_ (offsetof (struct _malloc_area_, name) + i);
+ temp = (mallocArea_ *) ptr;
+ *temp = a;
+ ptr = ptr + sizeof(mallocArea_*);
switch (type)
{ /* A little optimization to speed up killing
of non-permanent stuff. */
and happens to work only by accident. Could you enlighten us, Bud?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17180
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You reported the bug, or are watching the reporter.
