Re: mem_allocate_aligned

2001-12-11 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 08:40 AM 12/11/2001 +, Jonathan Stowe wrote: >On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > > > We need an "allocate zeroed" call too. We can get zeroed pages faster in > > some cases than we can allocate pages and zero them ourselves. > > > >Isn't that calloc() ? Yep, if we're using the ma

Re: mem_allocate_aligned

2001-12-11 Thread Jonathan Stowe
On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, Dan Sugalski wrote: > > We need an "allocate zeroed" call too. We can get zeroed pages faster in > some cases than we can allocate pages and zero them ourselves. > Isn't that calloc() ? /J\ -- Jonathan Stowe | |

Re: mem_allocate_aligned

2001-12-10 Thread mrjoltcola
On Monday, December 10, 2001 10:44:09 AM Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 02:57 PM 12/10/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote: >>On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:26:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > it has to do with the fact that the memory allocator >> > adjusts the address before returning the chunk and f

Re: mem_allocate_aligned

2001-12-10 Thread Dan Sugalski
At 02:57 PM 12/10/2001 +, Simon Cozens wrote: >On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:26:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > it has to do with the fact that the memory allocator > > adjusts the address before returning the chunk and free() > > then gets confused. Does this seem to be the issue? > >Th

Re: mem_allocate_aligned

2001-12-10 Thread Simon Cozens
On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:26:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > it has to do with the fact that the memory allocator > adjusts the address before returning the chunk and free() > then gets confused. Does this seem to be the issue? That's exactly what it is! Damn, I'd been seeing this too, an