Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "reallocf".
Did you mean:
realloc
2008 Feb 05
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease (version 2) available for testing
...11-05-Crash.ll | opt -disable-output -loop-unroll
child killed: segmentation violation
In this case FreeBSD's malloc debugging option J was enabled and disabling it
caused the test to pass. The option does:
J Each byte of new memory allocated by malloc(), realloc() or
reallocf() will be initialized to 0xa5. All memory returned by
free(), realloc() or reallocf() will be initialized to 0x5a.
This is intended for debugging and will impact performance nega-
tively.
-- Brooks
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachmen...
2008 Feb 05
3
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease (version 2) available for testing
LLVMers,
The next version of the 2.2 prerelease is available for testing:
http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/
Please see my last email for testing directions:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-January/012249.html
Please complete all testing by February 10th at 5PM PST.
Thanks!
-Tanya
2011 May 07
3
You don't check for malloc failure
Hi,
> On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:05 +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote:
>> You don't check for malloc failure. I've made a patch that is possibly
>> wrong but it saves the program from SIGSEGV and replaces it with SIGABRT.
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Philipp Schafft wrote:
> But I have a question:
> Not all of them (only had a brief look at the patch) look to be in a
>
2011 May 07
0
You don't check for malloc failure
...f bad programming.
> When memory is running out, malloc() may return a valid pointer, but
> writing anything in the malloc-ed data region can still result in the
> kernel killing the process.
Hmm.. So what am I not reading right in this:
"If successful, calloc(), malloc(), realloc(), reallocf(), and
valloc() functions return a pointer to allocated memory. If there is
an error, they return a NULL pointer and set errno"
Running out of memory is not considered as an error when calling malloc?
Romain
2016 Oct 03
3
Default alignment for 'malloc'
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote:
> 2016-10-03 13:55 GMT+02:00 Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:
> > I am trying to implement some new alignment based optimisations in our
> > target backend, and I am wondering if there a way a target can specify that
> > ‘malloc’, ‘realloc’ and ‘calloc’