[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bfac987a63cdc9ab0baed4235d832b2a@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 20:24:01 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Segfaults probably caused by DEBUG code in memory.c (was: Segfault for linux-x86-native with -DDEBUG added)
I can't recall now but to my defense, I may have been misled by the man page. The OSX one explicitly says "The allocated memory is aligned such that it can be used for any data type, including AltiVec- and SSE-related types". The Linux one states "...suitably aligned for any kind of variable" which apparently is not really true.
magnum
On 16 Apr, 2013, at 19:40 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, this is it. My bad. The rationale was to make memory debugging a lot easier under -DDEBUG but it was really *supposed* to still maintain requested alignment. Sometimes I amaze myself :-(
>
> magnum
>
>
> On 16 Apr, 2013, at 18:34 , jfoug <jfoug@....net> wrote:
>
>> From: Frank Dittrich [mailto:frank_dittrich@...mail.com]
>>>
>>> No segfaults.
>>> So I guess the -DDEBUG code in memory.c causes memory locations to be not aligned as expected.
>>
>> void *mem_alloc_tiny(size_t size, size_t align)
>> {
>> #ifdef DEBUG
>> void *res;
>>
>> +++ res = mem_alloc(size);
>> add_memory_link(res);
>> return res;
>> #else
>>
>> The line with +++. There is there assurance of alignment? Or do we need to allocate size+align, use that pointer in the add_memory_link, and then 'fix' the pointer?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
