On Wed, 21 Jan 2009, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 07:41:35PM -0500, Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 02:36:06PM -0800, Jason Evans wrote:
Brian Fundakowski Feldman wrote:
> Could you, and anyone else who would care to, check this out? It's a
regression
fix but it also makes the code a little bit clearer. Thanks!
Index: lib/libc/stdlib/malloc.c
Why does malloc need to change for this? Unless there's a really good
reason, I don't want the extra branches in the locking functions.
Because malloc is the thing causing the regression. It is easy enough
to optimize out the one extra fetch and branch in the single-threaded case
if I can get some consensus that the fix to it is actually fine.
The changes to thr_fork.c seem gratuituous; they don't
affect any functionality, and I don't see the difference
between the flag saying "unlock the malloc mutex" or
"I was threaded". Clearly, it is set in "if (__isthreaded)",
so it is obvious that it indeed was threaded.
I can't speak to the malloc changes...
--
DE
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
