On Monday, December 10, 2001 10:44:09 AM Dan Sugalski wrote: > At 02:57 PM 12/10/2001 +0000, Simon Cozens wrote: >>On Sun, Dec 09, 2001 at 11:26:44PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> > it has to do with the fact that the memory allocator >> > adjusts the address before returning the chunk and free() >> > then gets confused. Does this seem to be the issue? >> >>That's exactly what it is! Damn, I'd been seeing this too, and >>decided it was best to just ignore this until we have GC. > >Yup. Sorry, I've known about this for a bit but kept forgetting. >(And putting it off for the GC too...) > >Mem_allocate_aligned is used more than it needs to be in spots, and >is >generally dodgy. And wasteful.
Aye, thats what fresh eyes are for, to remind you of what you meant to do while doing 103224 other things. Anyway, I'll return to using malloc/free for my stuff then until someone gets time to get to the GC and allocators. With the IO stuff we could technically keep a private list of recycled IO objects and never free them at all. -Melvin
