[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAAepdCZ+oB2sOTjUfAzNkvCQY4sESWGU22WaEhnt6HJ4qKsp0w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2013 23:54:48 +0100
From: Rafael Waldo Delgado Doblas <lord.rafa@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Parallella: Litecoin mining
Hello,
2013/8/27 Yaniv Sapir <yaniv@...pteva.com>
> Rafael, if this question is still relevant, then yes, you can dynamically
> allocate memory using standard malloc(). However, malloc() (and other
> functions using its mechanism, like printf()) cannot be placed in internal
> memory and have to be executed from external mem, which is a bad thing
> w.r.t performance of critical code.
>
> That said, I think that "to allocate dynamic memory on an specific
> address" is kinda contradiction, since "specific" and "dynamic" do not work
> together... If what you're looking for is a memory region at a specific
> address, but who's life period is limited (i.e., the region can be reused
> for other purposes), then use pointers set to those "specific addresses"
> instead of static allocation of buffers.
Thank you Yaniv, I just wonder if there was a way to do it, because would
be nice in order to work with any core number. Each core need to write its
hash in a know address based in its row and col. With the current approach,
only a predefined number of cores can work, but if there was a way to write
to a specific address, we would have a code that would work in any epiphany
processor, independently of the core number.
Regards,
Rafael.
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
