|Re: [eigen] portable reallocation...|
[ Thread Index |
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/eigen Archives
- To: eigen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [eigen] portable reallocation...
- From: Hauke Heibel <hauke.heibel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:02:10 +0100
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=c10h+U3a4JMU6V8MeH96HJ4QH+RWtl1JZfffK+h7Kfg=; b=om3LJJi0F3By1fyBbYUuNzyCDLiMl5zJAvRiIycgkm/wSEAK9YlOnFbm1u6nG7F4Z3 tfNLzYzbbuzi1JwOWzhpn7k1TWNGX5JkHO3mm0SBCpKFpiLa9aSbIToZjazQvtMavzhf Q7OC65/pGeoQtRiafqGfTLbJup/h1OMlxl2iE=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=PeMiQEmq7sBI6BBgWO4hOI5PAwAYOHIJnMnFu+dBQ+tHUXaSf8XbHQwLmZfV4VLnno nQIV4JxvF0xK2qqPj/h4E948qqL9qGXqi+MsU0diGpol7xyN2YanKVfbMvIxQ9q3TU14 vn5JDVh38GY31nftLcpNStumrvYMaesFZXLiA=
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Wait, one more comment.
> The function name ei_handmade_aligned_realloc is unfortunate, since it
> seems to suggests that it's the function for use with
> So I would rather call it something like ei_generic_aligned_realloc.
> Then, it would be interesting to actually code the
> ei_handmade_aligned_realloc using std::realloc... indeed, in the
> handmade case, that would give better realloc performance.
> By the way, we also must call std::realloc and not realloc.
> 2010/2/28 Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Great patch, just 1 comment:
>> - /*errno = ENOMEM;*/ // according to the standard we should set
>> errno = ENOMEM
>> + errno = ENOMEM; // according to the standard
>> Isn't it std::errno? Recently someone complained that the standard
>> doesn't guarantee that the c++ headers will define these symbols in
>> the global namespace, only in the std namespace. Putting std::
>> everywhere was necessary to fix QNX/QCC compatibillity.
>> OH WAIT!
>> While we're at it, all the calls to free() must be replaced by std::free() !!
>> Finally, let me re-ask (since either you didn't reply to that or I
>> didn't understand the reply):
>> - how about moving MSVC's functions _aligned_... up in the priority list?
I am not really sure about that. We might do that. First, I'll take
care of the other changes ...