This is the mail archive of the cygwin-patches mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 05/04/2011 17:21, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 05:03:43PM +0100, Jon TURNEY wrote: >> On 04/04/2011 15:39, Christopher Faylor wrote: > I'm trying to imagine a scenario where it would screw up to just do the > reserve_upto + "reserve the low block" and I can't think of one. It's > potentially a little more work, of course, but I think it may catch the > more common failing conditions so it shouldn't be too noticeable. > >>> If so, it seems like we're allocating and freeing the space up to the DLL more >>> than once. I think we could avoid doing that. >> >> For performance reasons, I think you are right. Or do you mean there is a >> correctness issue with that? >> >> If you indicate your preferences I'll respin the patch. >> >> 1) Combine passes 2 and 3 > > I'd prefer this. If we can get people test the snapshot maybe we an > figure out if a separate loop is useful. Updated patch attached.
Attachment:
dll_init.patch
Description: Text document
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |