This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the newlib project.
Re: [PATCH newlib]An alternative implementation of malloc family's functions with small foot-print
- From: Corinna Vinschen <vinschen at redhat dot com>
- To: newlib at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 11:06:57 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH newlib]An alternative implementation of malloc family's functions with small foot-print
- References: <004501ce4fad$4301c8d0$c9055a70$ at firstname.lastname@example.org> <20130528104459 dot GF5264 at calimero dot vinschen dot de> <006001ce5c35$1f0cfcd0$5d26f670$ at email@example.com>
- Reply-to: newlib at sourceware dot org
On May 29 14:24, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> > On May 13 15:41, Bin Cheng wrote:
> > > As a part of our library work in GNU Tools for ARM Embedded
> > > Processors, we implemented an alternative implementation of malloc
> > > family's functions with small foot-print.
> > > [...]
> > Two comments:
> > > + --enable-newlib-nano-malloc use nano version malloc implementation
> > Using the word "nano" here *might* imply that the malloc implementation is a
> > low-size one, but it isn't really clear, IMHO. Wouldn't something like "tiny"
> > be more clear? Alternatively, if you like the nano name, I think it would be
> > helpful to at least add to the description here, along the lines of
> > --enable-newlib-nano-malloc use small-footprint nano-malloc
> > implementation
> Since we have used the word "nano" elsewhere, so the name is kept in case any confusion. The description has been modified as your request.
> > > +#ifndef max
> > > +#define max(a,b) ((a) >= (b) ? (a) : (b)) #endif
> > I'd prefer if you just include <sys/param.h> and use the uppercase MAX() macro
> > instead.
> Unfortunately I has to keep the macro definition in nano-mallocr.c because <sys/param.h> is overridden by target specific one, which may do not define MAX (for example, on ARM).
> The macro name is modified into uppercase as your request.
> > Other than that, I think this is ok for inclusion.
> The new patch is attached, is it OK?
Yes, thank you. Please apply.