www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
X-Authentication-Warning: | delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f |
From: | sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann) |
Message-Id: | <10202082038.AA22206@clio.rice.edu> |
Subject: | Re: Alignment problem |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Fri, 8 Feb 2002 14:38:02 -0600 (CST) |
In-Reply-To: | <200202081853.g18IrgO08699@envy.delorie.com> from "DJ Delorie" at Feb 08, 2002 01:53:42 PM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL2] |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
Reply-To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Errors-To: | nobody AT delorie DOT com |
X-Mailing-List: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
X-Unsubscribes-To: | listserv AT delorie DOT com |
> It doesn't align to 8 bytes. It rounds the *size* up to 8 bytes. > > Malloc doesn't need to align to "optimum" alignment. It only needs > align to "required" alignment. If we need to increase the alignment, > then we will. I think we should increase the alignment to 8 bytes when we get around to it since it does have a huge impact on some operations (such as floating loads/stores). I haven't looked at our malloc() at all, but if it uses before and after longword boundary tags then 8-byte alignment doesn't waste any memory either (just potentially 4 bytes after a new sbrk()).
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |