[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Memory allocation
From: |
James Morrison |
Subject: |
Re: Memory allocation |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Apr 2002 09:06:04 -0700 (PDT) |
--- Ludovic Courtès <lcourtes@altern.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2002 at 01:48:08PM +0300, Ognyan Kulev wrote:
> > The second question is about using mmap/munmap instead of
> > vm_allocate/vm_deallocate. In pq.[ch] they are mixed, there is no
> > consistency. What is the reason to prefer `mmap' to `vm_allocate'? Is
> > there a policy about that?
>
> Some translators use the libc functions (malloc, mmap, etc.) while others
> only
> use the `native' allocation functions like vm_allocate(). Since libc calls
> are
> wrappers to vm_*, shouldn't be better to use vm_* in any Hurd-specific code
> (such as translators)?
>
> Cheers,
> Ludovic.
>
I would think the opposite. The vm_* functions are mach system calls and on
L4 there may be a better way to get memory than emulating the vm_* calls, so
I think the libc functions should be used. I also think the libc functions
should be used so the code is easier to read.
=====
James Morrison
University of Waterloo
Computer Science - Digital Hardware
2A co-op
http://hurd.dyndns.org
Anyone refering this as 'Open Source' shall be eaten by a GNU
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
- Memory allocation, Ludovic Courtès, 2002/04/10
- Re: Memory allocation,
James Morrison <=