Re: [PING][PATCH] Expand INTERNAL_SIZE_T macro.

[OndÅej BÃlka <neleai at seznam dot cz>]

ping
On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 01:13:33AM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> ping
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 09:12:12PM +0100, OndÅej BÃlka wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 10:16:10AM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> > > On 9 December 2013 18:21, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@seznam.cz> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > other malloc macro that causes bit of confusion is INTERNAL_SIZE_T.
> > > > We define it as size_t, only way this could be usable is user compiling
> > > > custom allocator.
> > > >
> > > > I am for dropping these as we then do not have to assume that change.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >         * malloc/hooks.c (mem2mem_check, top_check, free_check, realloc_check):
> > > >         Change INTERNAL_SIZE_T to size_t.
> > > >         * malloc/malloc.c (__malloc_assert, static, mremap_chunk,
> > > >         __libc_malloc, __libc_realloc, __libc_calloc, _int_malloc, _int_free,
> > > >         _int_realloc, _int_memalign, __malloc_trim, int_mallinfo): Likewise.
> > > 
> > > This looks like a good cleanup to me, although I would be grateful if
> > > someone with more experience in this area could give their thoughts.
> > >
> > So does somebody else have comments?
> > 
> > > > -    Changing default word sizes:
> > > > -
> > > > -    INTERNAL_SIZE_T            size_t
> > > > -    MALLOC_ALIGNMENT           MAX (2 * sizeof(INTERNAL_SIZE_T),
> > > > -                                   __alignof__ (long double))
> > > > -
> > > 
> > > Should the MALLOC_ALIGNMENT comment stay?
> > > 
> > It duplicates a comment before MALLOC_ALIGNMENT definition, it is not needed here.
> > 
> > > >
> > > >  #define REQUEST_OUT_OF_RANGE(req)                                 \
> > > >    ((unsigned long)(req) >=                                        \
> > > > -   (unsigned long)(INTERNAL_SIZE_T)(-2 * MINSIZE))
> > > > +   (unsigned long)(size_t)(-2 * MINSIZE))
> > > 
> > > I think these casts can go if we use size_t.
> > > 
> > There are many other casts that can go away, that cleanup should be done
> > in separate patch.
> > 
> > > >
> > > >    /* internal size_t must be no wider than pointer type */
> > > > -  assert(sizeof(INTERNAL_SIZE_T) <= sizeof(char*));
> > > > +  assert(sizeof(size_t) <= sizeof(char*));
> > > 
> > > Should this use SIZE_SZ?
> > > 
> > Yes, but this also belongs to separate patch. Also  2 * SIZE_SZ is in
> > most of places size of header so we should use HEADER_SZ or such.
> 
> -- 
> 
> You need to upgrade your VESA local bus to a MasterCard local bus.

-- 

Electrical conduits in machine room are melting.