[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <329dd1c2-ddb2-4674-a54e-50b9886edee6@cs.ucla.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 17:19:57 -0700
From: Paul Eggert <eggert@...ucla.edu>
To: libc-coord@...ts.openwall.com, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, enh <enh@...gle.com>,
Zijun Zhao <zijunzhao@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: aligned_realloc()
On 2024-07-24 13:15, Rich Felker wrote:
> I think
> you'll find that's a lot more constraining on what part of the address
> space you can use than you'd expect.
It's merely a performance tradeoff; without measurements it's hard to
make definitive statements. And it's not too hard to imagine further
relatively-minor implementation changes that would avoid many of the
problems you foresee. But I won't pursue the issue, as my own impression
is that aligned_alloc suffices and there's not a strong need for
aligned_realloc, aligned_reallocarray, or aligned_calloc.
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.
