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: "Bin Cheng" <bin dot cheng at arm dot com>
- To: <newlib at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 29 May 2013 17:08:07 +0800
- 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> <20130529090657 dot GA17692 at calimero dot vinschen dot de>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On
> Behalf Of Corinna Vinschen
> Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2013 5:07 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH newlib]An alternative implementation of malloc family's
> functions with small foot-print
> 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.
Could you please apply it for me cause I don't have write access.
Thanks very much.