> On 10/27/20 11:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
> > Looks reasonable, but I do not like very much the non-configurable
> > preallocation since libgcov was meant to be useful for embedded targets
> > and not consume too much.
>
> Sure, we can handle that later when it's really an issue.
>
> > I guess w
On 10/27/20 11:29 AM, Jan Hubicka wrote:
Looks reasonable, but I do not like very much the non-configurable
preallocation since libgcov was meant to be useful for embedded targets
and not consume too much.
Sure, we can handle that later when it's really an issue.
I guess we could handle that
> > Hello.
> >
> > As noticed in the PR, it's quite tricky to not run malloc (or calloc)
> > in context of libgcov. I'm suggesting a new approach where we'll first
> > use the pre-allocated static buffer in hope that malloc function is
> > initialized
> > and so every call to calloc can happen. T
@Honza: PING
Thanks
On 10/20/20 11:10 AM, Martin Liška wrote:
Hello.
As noticed in the PR, it's quite tricky to not run malloc (or calloc)
in context of libgcov. I'm suggesting a new approach where we'll first
use the pre-allocated static buffer in hope that malloc function is initialized
and
