From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9337 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2013 07:13:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ecos-patches-help@ecos.sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: ecos-patches-owner@ecos.sourceware.org Received: (qmail 9324 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2013 07:13:14 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from hagrid.ecoscentric.com (HELO mail.ecoscentric.com) (212.13.207.197) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:13:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ecoscentric.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11E024680006 for ; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:13:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from mail.ecoscentric.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hagrid.ecoscentric.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YU4qgDsNceN2; Sun, 7 Apr 2013 08:12:54 +0100 (BST) From: bugzilla-daemon@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org To: ecos-patches@ecos.sourceware.org Subject: [Bug 1001814] Kinetis clock gating Date: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 07:13:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: eCos X-Bugzilla-Component: Patches and contributions X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: mjones@linear.com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: low X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned@bugs.ecos.sourceware.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 Please do not reply to this email, use the link below. http://bugs.ecos.sourceware.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1001814 --- Comment #20 from Mike Jones --- I printed out dlmalloc.cxx before I retired for the day and read some of the description. I can't understand how this code with the large malloc ever worked. Given the 26K heap, and the allocation up to 4K chunks, no chunk should ever have been large enough unless it can append chunks, which my understanding is that it can't do that. Given that, I don't think I have any choice but to rewrite my algorithm to use a 4K buffer. So I can't find any reason not to commit this code, even if it breaks my code. However, if anyone has any idea how it could have worked, please enlighten me. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.