On 21 Mar 2000, Rask Ingemann Lambertsen wrote:
> Den 20-Mar-00 13:12:16 skrev James Sutherland følgende om "Re: Some questions about linux kernel.":
> > On Sun, 19 Mar 2000 15:50:07 -0600, you wrote:
>
> > malloc() just allocates address SPACE. TOUCHING the memory then
> > populates that space, which is how I can use malloc() for a nice,
> > simple sparse matrix implementation. (On Win32, you have to mess
> > around trapping exceptions in userland and allocating the memory
> > yourself...)
>
> Note that malloc() is documented as allocating memory, regardless of
> whether you actually touch it or not. Any programmer relies on that.
malloc() is not a system call. It's not a kernel issue. If it does not
work as you expect, it's a (documentation) bug.
It uses brk(), which is a system call. bck() is well documented, and does
exactly what expected to do. It extends a process address space. No more,
no less.
> >>We are talking about the sum of all concurrent requests, and the system
> >>aborting when part of the requests already granted turns out to not be
> >>granted.
>
> > No. The malloc() call requested address space, and that succeeded -
> > the address space was available.
>
> > What is NOT available, however, is memory to populate that area fully.
> > So what?
>
> So you have a broken malloc().
"you"? this is not the libc mailing list. And BTW, *my* malloc works
exaclty as *I* expect. And it's the standard glibc one.
[...]
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 23 2000 - 21:00:35 EST