From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21193 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2007 19:40:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 21185 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Sep 2007 19:40:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from alnrmhc14.comcast.net (HELO alnrmhc14.comcast.net) (206.18.177.54) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:40:49 +0000 Received: from rickmce (c-68-55-175-129.hsd1.md.comcast.net[68.55.175.129]) by comcast.net (alnrmhc14) with SMTP id <20070913194047b1400rqe5ee>; Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:40:47 +0000 From: "Rick Davis" To: "Ecos-Discuss" Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: <006a01c7f63e$3d31d630$b7958290$@net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0 Content-Language: en-us Mailing-List: contact ecos-discuss-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-discuss-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [ECOS] dOUG lEE'S MALLOC X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00079.txt.bz2 I am porting to a new Power-PC platform that has 256M of DDR on it. I am using the latest snapshot (today as a matter of fact). If I call setvbuf (stdout, NULL, _IONBF, 0), Doug's code complains throwing some sort of size assertion. If I don't call setvbuf but call show_memory, that complains about other issues. If I use the simple malloc routines instead, everything works fine. Is there a memory size issue? Is something not being called in the right order during initialization? I was also having issue programming my 64M of 32 bit wide Spansion FLASH with Doug's routines. The issue seems to have disappeared using the simple malloc functions. Rick Davis -- Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss