GNU bug report logs -
#12242
Emacs 24.2 RC1 build fails on OpenBSD
Previous Next
Full log
Message #35 received at 12242 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):
> Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:12:37 +0900
> From: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu <at> math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp>
> Cc: YAMAMOTO Mitsuharu <mituharu <at> math.s.chiba-u.ac.jp>,
> Stefan Monnier <monnier <at> iro.umontreal.ca>,
> Chong Yidong <cyd <at> gnu.org>,
> Kenichi Handa <handa <at> m17n.org>,
> jca <at> wxcvbn.org,
> 12242 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
>
> >>>>> On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 19:58:12 +0300, Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org> said:
>
> >>> My reading of the code is that inhibiting relocation just means
> >>> that ralloc.c always asks for more memory when it cannot find a
> >>> large enough block in the existing heaps.
> >>
> >> For example, `virtual_break_value' is not updated in that case. It
> >> can lead to an inconsistent state as reported if r_alloc_sbrk is
> >> called with a positive argument via malloc when
> >> use_relocatable_buffers <= 0, and then it is called with a negative
> >> argument via free when use_relocatable_buffers > 0.
>
> > I see your point.
>
> Sorry, I noticed that the senario I gave above was actually bogus.
> Typically free will call r_alloc_sbrk(0) and check the return value
> with respect to the area to be reclaimed before calling r_alloc_sbrk
> with a negative argument.
>
> Now I don't have a concrete senario to conclude that it is wrong to
> change use_relocatable_buffers temporarily. I'm really sorry if my
> previous posts confused you.
No sweat. I guess I will need to take a deeper look at the problem.
This bug report was last modified 12 years and 330 days ago.
Previous Next
GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham,
1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd,
1994-97 Ian Jackson.