El dom, 28-08-2005 a las 13:44 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On my stress test (continuosly building glibc in a loop), that patch
> > keeps the number of ext2fs's threads around 200, which is a pretty sane
> > number. No "zalloc's panic" nor
Note that this is not my patch we're discussing, but as Alfred is
currently on vacations, ...
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:51:37PM -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > +void (*__malloc_initialize_hook) (void) = (void *) init_hook;
> >>
> >> Do you r
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the proposed code should give a compiler error (which doesn't mean
> that it does, of course). Function pointers and data pointers are really
> different types, and cannot be mixed. They need not even be the same size.
Except that (void *) is com
Thomas Schwinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > +void (*__malloc_initialize_hook) (void) = (void *) init_hook;
>>
>> Do you really need the void * cast?
> The cast avoids the following warning:
> #v+
> [...]
> ../../hurd-0/mach-defpager/../serverboot/kalloc.c:43: warning: initialization
> from
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 11:03:31PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > +
> > > +void (*__malloc_initialize_hook) (void) = (void *) init_hook;
> >
> > Do you really need the void * cast?
>
> The cast avoids the following warning:
> #v+
> [...]
> ../../hurd-0/mach-defpager/../serverboot/kalloc.c:4
Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On my stress test (continuosly building glibc in a loop), that patch
> keeps the number of ext2fs's threads around 200, which is a pretty sane
> number. No "zalloc's panic" nor any other error were noticed. Perhaps
> someone else with a little of spare ti
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 09:00:41PM +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > What about the following fix? This should fix things so that we don't
> > use vanilla malloc/free, and only use our own versions.
>
> This looks okay. Has it been tested?
Michael Banck and I have been running the fixed binary
> What about the following fix? This should fix things so that we don't
> use vanilla malloc/free, and only use our own versions.
This looks okay. Has it been tested?
> +#include /* for malloc_hook/free_hook */
> +
> +void *init_hook (void);
> +void *malloc_hook (size_t size, const vo
On 8/28/05, Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is not a bad thing per se if you guys don't feel like working on
> Mach anymore, but it would probably be good to communicate this clearly
> to people either way, as some still seem to be interested in hacking on
> it
On 8/28/05, Jose E. Marchesi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This is not a bad thing per se if you guys don't feel like working on
> Mach anymore, but it would probably be good to communicate this clearly
> to people either way, as some still seem to be interested in hacking on
> it
El sáb, 27-08-2005 a las 19:52 -0700, Thomas Bushnell BSG escribió:
> Sergio Lopez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Oh, ok. Could you please help me to ask _all the things involved_ by
> > this...
>
> Sorry, this is now in realm of just the same generic "tell me
> everything!" question.
>
> As
You need to ask a fairly specific question. If the question is
"can you check this in, please?" then you need to, um, ask the
people who are handling checkins. It isn't Roland and me.
For HEAD it is Roland, for ams-branch it is anyone with commit access.
__
Sergio's patches cannot be commited until his papers are in order.
Hence why the seqno thing has not been commited.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
Bug-hurd@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
13 matches
Mail list logo
