Re: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 08:12 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Dan wrote: > >># In lieu of a de-allocator for mem_allocate_aligned I vote > >># we at least do something in the interim and I volunteer to > >># help as soon as someone decides what it is! > >> > >>Maybe we can have a mem_free_aligned that s

Re: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread mrjoltcola
Dan wrote: >># In lieu of a de-allocator for mem_allocate_aligned I vote >># we at least do something in the interim and I volunteer to >># help as soon as someone decides what it is! >> >>Maybe we can have a mem_free_aligned that somehow figures out what the >>starting address is. If we do that a

RE: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 04:29 PM 12/12/2001 -0800, Brent Dax wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED]: ># In lieu of a de-allocator for mem_allocate_aligned I vote ># we at least do something in the interim and I volunteer to ># help as soon as someone decides what it is! > >Maybe we can have a mem_free_aligned that somehow figures

Re: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 05:20 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >The only thing that needs the allocated alignment is some of the internal > >pieces--the stack chunks and register frames, really. Everything else can > >use a plain malloc. Well, mem_allocate, rather, which can be a wrapper >around malloc

RE: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread Brent Dax
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: # In lieu of a de-allocator for mem_allocate_aligned I vote # we at least do something in the interim and I volunteer to # help as soon as someone decides what it is! Maybe we can have a mem_free_aligned that somehow figures out what the starting address is. If we do that and

Re: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread mrjoltcola
>The only thing that needs the allocated alignment is some of the internal >pieces--the stack chunks and register frames, really. Everything else can >use a plain malloc. Well, mem_allocate, rather, which can be a wrapper around malloc for now. > >Dan Maybe we can do this for now? -Melvin ---

Re: Allocators

2001-12-12 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 05:04 PM 12/12/2001 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >At minimum we should be using plain malloc() until a >better solution or the current one is finished, else >right now we have a glaring memory leak for ops that >need to destroy strings. > >Can't the current function be at least tweaked so it