Displaying 20 results from an estimated 663 matches for "deallocator".
2008 May 09
2
Deallocation of a locked memory block
I repeatedly get a popup when running an old Windows 3.1 game on Ubuntu, Wine 0.9.59. It reads ...
Memory BUG
Deallocation of a locked memory block
I can usually continue OK, but it's very annoying. Is there anything I can do about it?
Thanks.
2018 Sep 15
4
LLVMContext: Threads and Ownership.
Hi All,
ORC's new concurrent compilation model generates some interesting lifetime
and thread safety questions around LLVMContext: We need multiple
LLVMContexts (one per module in the simplest case, but at least one per
thread), and the lifetime of each context depends on the execution path of
the JIT'd code. We would like to deallocate contexts once all modules
associated with them have
2014 Jan 22
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] LTO: deallocating llvm::Module inside lto_codegen_add_module
LTOCodeGenerator::addModule (which is wrapped by lto_codegen_add_module) takes
an LTOModule as an argument and links the latter's llvm::Module into its own.
It does not change the latter's llvm::Module.
The lto_module_dispose API call destroys an LTOModule. This frees the
LTOModule's llvm::Module, but also invalidates strings returned by, e.g.,
lto_module_get_symbol_name.
I propose
2018 Oct 15
3
[PATCH v8] virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com>
>
> In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features
> to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the virtio
There is some issues in this spec. For one using the multiple ranges
also for write zeroes is rather
2018 Oct 15
3
[PATCH v8] virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support
On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com>
>
> In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features
> to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the virtio
There is some issues in this spec. For one using the multiple ranges
also for write zeroes is rather
2020 Jun 24
7
RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler
Hi all,
I've included an RFC for a heap profiler design I've been working on in
conjunction with David Li. Please send any questions or feedback. For
sanitizer folks, one area of feedback is on refactoring some of the *ASAN
shadow setup code (see the Shadow Memory section).
Thanks,
Teresa
RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler
Summary
This document provides an overview of an LLVM
2009 Aug 13
3
DO NOT REPLY [Bug 6636] New: Deallocation of a pointer not malloced
https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6636
Summary: Deallocation of a pointer not malloced
Product: rsync
Version: 3.0.6
Platform: PPC
OS/Version: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
Severity: major
Priority: P3
Component: core
AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org
ReportedBy: aaro at iki.fi
2018 Oct 15
0
[PATCH v8] virtio_blk: add discard and write zeroes support
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 2:27 AM Christoph Hellwig <hch at infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 02:06:28PM -0700, Daniel Verkamp wrote:
> > From: Changpeng Liu <changpeng.liu at intel.com>
> >
> > In commit 88c85538, "virtio-blk: add discard and write zeroes features
> > to specification" (https://github.com/oasis-tcs/virtio-spec), the
2005 Jun 22
0
Deallocation bug in speex
Hi,
So 9316 works and 9320 doesn't? How about latest SVN. I just ran
everything in valgrind and saw no error at all. Can you give more info
on how to reproduce (with speexenc)?
Jean-Marc
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 ? 21:19 -0300, Dario Andrade a ?crit :
>
>
> When updating the speex sources from svn tree, I found that the
> following revision has corrupted the deallocation
2005 Jun 22
2
Deallocation bug in speex
When updating the speex sources from svn tree, I found that the following
revision has corrupted the deallocation (segmentation fault):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r9320 | jm | 2005-05-27 15:05:05 -0300 (Fri, 27 May 2005) | 2 lines
Proper de-allocation
When compiling with the 9316, everything works fine.
but when I update with later
2014 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Optimization hints for "constant" loads
On 12/01/2014 11:14 AM, Andrew Trick wrote:
>
>> On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:03 PM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com
>> <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Sanjoy made a good point. We don't actually need a new variant of
>> "invariant.start". Simply using an invariant.start with no uses
>> gives us a notion
2020 Jun 25
1
RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler
Hi, Teresa,
This looks really useful.
It seems like this general infrastructure could be useful for diagnosing
places where we have a lot of false sharing too. This could be between
cores, sockets, or devices. Looking forward, especially with HMM and
support under Linux for transparent unified memory between CPUs and
accelerators, I anticipate we'll end up looking for places where some
2020 Jul 05
2
RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler
On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:28 PM Wenlei He <wenlei at fb.com> wrote:
> This sounds very useful. We’ve improved and used memoro
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm47XsATelI> for memory profiling and
> analysis, and we are also looking for ways to leverage memory profile for
> PGO/FDO. I think having a common profiling infrastructure for analysis
> tooling as well as
2020 Jul 09
2
RFC: Sanitizer-based Heap Profiler
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 6:30 PM Kostya Serebryany <kcc at google.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 4:58 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've included an RFC for a heap profiler design I've been working on in
>> conjunction with David Li. Please send any questions or feedback. For
>>
2013 Jan 20
1
[LLVMdev] Memory clean for applications using LLVM for JIT compilation
On 14 Jan 2013, at 15:48, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote:
>
> Or maybe would it be possible to have a custom allocator for memory space for the native code that we could provide? With this last option we would be responsible for the clean up ourselves and just provide memory space to LLVM where it can store the results.
>
> Yes, you should be able to inherit from
2018 Dec 14
0
[WIP PATCH 05/15] drm/dp_mst: Fix payload deallocation on hotplugs using malloc refs
Up until now, freeing payloads on remote MST hubs that just had ports
removed has almost never worked because we've been relying on port
validation in order to stop us from accessing ports that have already
been freed from memory, but ports which need their payloads released due
to being removed will never be a valid part of the topology after
they've been removed.
Since we've
2018 Jul 11
8
[RFC] A nofree (and nosynch) function attribute: Mixing dereferenceable and delete
Hi, everyone,
I'd like to propose adding a nofree function attribute to indicate that
a function does not, directly or indirectly, call a memory-deallocation
function (e.g., free, C++'s operator delete). Clang/LLVM can currently
misoptimize functions that:
1. Have a reference argument.
2. Free the memory backing the object to which the reference is bound
during the function's
2009 Mar 27
42
[PATCH 00/42] ocfs2: Add reflink file support. V1
Hi all,
So I have finally finished the v1 of reflink for ocfs2. It has some
bugs that I am still investigating, but the schema is almost there. So
I'd like to send it out first for review. And Tristan and I will
continue to work on the stability of the code.
The general information for reflink, please see
http://oss.oracle.com/osswiki/OCFS2/DesignDocs/Reflink.
For the design doc, please
2011 Jul 25
0
[LLVMdev] Memory leaks in the JIT and how will MC-objects be deallocated in the MCJIT?
We are currently using the JIT (non-MC) to implement a REPL-like shell that
needs to run in a long-lived process. During development, we noticed
substantial memory-growth with increased lifetime of the JIT.
In trying to eliminate that continuous memory growth, we did a few things,
including making LLVMContext collect and free unused constants (detected by
Value::uses_empty()). This dropped
2005 May 25
1
Deallocation of buffers
I noticed that in the narrow band and wide band destroy functions only
the main pointer is being freed. I think that it should be:
void nb_decoder_destroy(void *state)
{
DecState *st;
st=(DecState*)state;
speex_free (st->inBuf);
speex_free (st->excBuf);
speex_free (st->innov);
speex_free (st->interp_qlpc);
speex_free (st->qlsp);
speex_free