| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| ... | |
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
even if size_t was 32-bit already, the fact that the value was
unsigned and that gcc is too stupid to figure out it would be positive
as a signed quantity (due to the immediately-prior arithmetic and
conditionals) results in gcc compiling the integer-to-float conversion
as zero extension to 64 bits followed by an "fildll" (64 bit)
instruction rather than a simple "fildl" (32 bit) instruction on x86.
reportedly fildll is very slow on certain p4-class machines; even if
not, the new code is slightly smaller.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
the bug appeared only with requests roughly 2*sizeof(size_t) to
4*sizeof(size_t) bytes smaller than a multiple of the page size, and
only for requests large enough to be serviced by mmap instead of the
normal heap. it was only ever observed on 64-bit machines but
presumably could also affect 32-bit (albeit with a smaller window of
opportunity).
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
if init_malloc returns positive (successful first init), malloc will
retry getting a chunk from the free bins rather than expanding the
heap again. also pass init_malloc a hint for the size of the initial
allocation.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
why does this affect behavior? well, the linker seems to traverse
archive files starting from its current position when resolving
symbols. since calloc.c comes alphabetically (and thus in sequence in
the archive file) between __simple_malloc.c and malloc.c, attempts to
resolve the "malloc" symbol for use by calloc.c were pulling in the
full malloc.c implementation rather than the __simple_malloc.c
implementation.
as of now, lite_malloc.c and malloc.c are adjacent in the archive and
in the correct order, so malloc.c should never be used to resolve
"malloc" unless it's already needed to resolve another symbol ("free"
or "realloc").
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
this change is made with some reluctance, but i think it's for the
best. correct programs must handle either behavior, so there is little
advantage to having malloc(0) return NULL. and i managed to actually
make the malloc code slightly smaller with this change.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
do not allow allocations that overflow ptrdiff_t; fix some overflow
checks that were not quite right but didn't matter due to address
layout implementation.
|
| |
|
