Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #57630, comment 8
- Timestamp:
- Nov 21, 2018, 5:06:44 PM (6 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #57630, comment 8
initial v1 1 you're right, I skipped an alignment vheck. I like your extra bits. I think we can massage a bit more and find a way. If alignment is <16 we could just use malloc, as macos guarantees 16 byte alignment at all times.1 you're right, I skipped an alignment check. 2 2 3 there.is a very complete replacement available called dlmalloc.c with a very liberal license. I wasn't clear how to make it only cough up posix_memalign without all the other memory functions trampling us.3 I like your extra bits. I think we can massage a bit more and find a way to find something acceptible. If alignment is <= 16 we can just use malloc, as macos guarantees 16 byte alignment at all times. That will likely save a few K of memory. 4 4 5 For blosc, turns out the author has previosly spported macs < 10.6 in the code; he's just added a new benchmark.c that doesn't . You can skip the build of benchmark.c by turning off tests. Then you have what we had before. My PR does that. So you can use that right now if you want... 5 there.is a very complete replacement available called dlmalloc <ftp://g.oswego.edu/pub/misc/malloc.c> with a very liberal license. I wasn't clear how to make it only cough up posix_memalign without all the other memory functions trampling us. I was looking at that one if we could use it. 6 7 For blosc, it turns out the author has previously supported macs < 10.6 in the code; he's just recently added a new benchmark.c that doesn't . You can skip the build of benchmark.c by turning off tests. Then you have what we had before. My PR does that. So you can use that right now if you want... 6 8 7 9 btw blosc with or without the posix_memalign patch will pass nearly all tests -- high 90s -- a i suspect it always did not get 100% on 10.5 PPC.