[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <004101ce3ad3$1f622800$5e267800$@net>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 13:49:27 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
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 read the man pages myself, prior to posting that email. I had started on
the email, then read the dox. I almost stopped, to allow others to find the
'real' problem. But I then spotted the bottom of the mem_alloc_tiny
function (where a huge block is allocated and used). Since it had the
alignment 'fix' there, I figured that no matter what the dox list, this is
something that REALLY must happen, to assure proper alignment. I had not
tested the code I posted in the email, I am not where I can do so right now.
However, it really looked like that code was added to the bottom of the
function on purpose, so likely it is really a requirement, and the dox are
misleading, or worse, simply wrong.
From: magnum [mailto:john.magnum@...hmail.com]
>
>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.
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.
