On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 10:11:41AM -0800, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 04:11:24PM -0800, Gurucharan Shetty wrote: > >> For systems that do not use linker sections and also do not > >> have either HAVE_THREAD_LOCAL or HAVE___THREAD (ex: windows > >> using MSVC), a COVERAGE_INC() calls xmalloc which inturn calls > >> COVERAGE_INC() creating a recursion that causes a stack overflow. > > > > Is it still necessary? I just applied some changes that eliminate > > differences between systems. > > It is still necessary. But instead of changing xmalloc->malloc inside > DEFINE_EXTERN_PER_THREAD_DATA, I will have to change the xmalloc in > DEFINE_STATIC_PER_THREAD_DATA. Do you think I should change > xmalloc->malloc at both the places (to avoid future inconsistencies)?
I'm happy with that, sure. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
