From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19543 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2013 12:28:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-xfree-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-xfree-owner@cygwin.com Reply-To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 19534 invoked by uid 89); 14 Aug 2013 12:28:42 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 Received: from bureau94.ns.utoronto.ca (HELO bureau94.ns.utoronto.ca) (128.100.132.252) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:28:41 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.106] (206-248-170-238.dsl.teksavvy.com [206.248.170.238]) (authenticated bits=0) by bureau94.ns.utoronto.ca (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r7ECSbZj006121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 14 Aug 2013 08:28:38 -0400 Message-ID: <520B77F0.9010009@cs.utoronto.ca> Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2013 12:28:00 -0000 From: Ryan Johnson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin-xfree@cygwin.com Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] Uploads for 12 August References: <520A01DF.1040208@alice.it> <520A21B1.8060503@alice.it> <520A3EF6.80700@cornell.edu> <520A7654.3080207@users.sourceforge.net> <20130813182653.GA4315@calimero.vinschen.de> <520AAC65.1090708@cornell.edu> <20130814091656.GE4315@calimero.vinschen.de> <520B5BC7.4060306@cornell.edu> <20130814105326.GF4315@calimero.vinschen.de> <20130814113351.GG4315@calimero.vinschen.de> <20130814115920.GH4315@calimero.vinschen.de> In-Reply-To: <20130814115920.GH4315@calimero.vinschen.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On 14/08/2013 7:59 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Aug 14 13:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Aug 14 12:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Aug 14 06:28, Ken Brown wrote: >>>> On 8/14/2013 5:16 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> On Aug 14 10:10, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>>> On Aug 13 18:00, Ken Brown wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/13/2013 2:26 PM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>>>>> What function is not implemented? Is that something we can fix, >>>>>>>> perhaps in the Cygwin DLL? >>>>>>> It's memalign, or at least that's what it was in 2007. See >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2007-02/msg00678.html >>>>>> So it's using its own malloc but we don't support overriding other >>>>>> functions besides malloc/realloc/calloc/free. >>>>>> >>>>>> In theory we could do that in future. We still have room for 10 (x86) >>>>>> resp. 12 (x86_64) pointers in the per_process structure, which could be >>>>>> used for this purpose. This would only require applications which need >>>>>> this feature to be rebuilt with the next Cygwin version providing these >>>>>> pointers. >>>>> More precisely, they have to be rebuild using crt0.o from the next >>>>> Cygwin release, and they would have to run under the next Cygwin >>>>> release. If you omit one step, you're back to the current behaviour. >>>>> >>>>>> But we shouldn't waste those unused slots either, so the number of >>>>>> overridable functions should be kept small. In theory we have mallopt, >>>>>> mallinfo, posix_memalign, memalign, and valloc. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess we can skip mallopt and mallinfo since they are pretty >>>>>> seldomly used in user-provided malloc implementations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Memalign is an old, deprecated function, so I wonder why it's used at >>>>>> all. GSlice should use posix_memalign instead. Yaakov, is there an >>>>>> option to use posix_memalign rather than memalign? >>>> I just checked the glib source, and it does use posix_memalign if >>>> it's available. I was quoting a 2007 discussion when I said it was >>>> memalign that GSlice wanted to use. >>> Given that, we should perhaps skip the memalign override. >> On second (third? fourth?) thought, I think we should do this with >> posix_memalign only. valloc is just as obsolete as posix_memalign. > I applied the patch to allow overriding posix_memalloc only, and I'm > building snapshots right now. For testing, this requires to rebuild > either emacs, or glib, or both, I'm not sure. Make sure to link against > the new crt0.o/libcygwin.a and use the new Cygwin DLL for testing. Wait, it's "memalign" that's obsolete and "posix_memalign" that you added a patch for, right? The last couple of paragraphs were a little confusing... Ryan -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/ FAQ: http://x.cygwin.com/docs/faq/