This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Integer overflow in operator new

From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu>
To: "J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Lawrence Crowl" <crowl at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 06 Apr 2007 18:53:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Integer overflow in operator new
References: <quack.20070406T0840.lthfy7d1pfs@roar.cs.berkeley.edu> <998d0e4a0704061535n4920c859jf7737c778532e66e@mail.gmail.com> <quack.20070406T1545.lthd52hazqj@roar.cs.berkeley.edu> <de8d50360704061557p711e2e40k7078222e062c97a8@mail.gmail.com> <29bd08b70704061612k679b9fd0r4a2bc73dbc039661@mail.gmail.com> <998d0e4a0704061633o82aaea9h55e3d844d9a8576c@mail.gmail.com>

"J.C. Pizarro" <jcpiza@gmail.com> writes:

[...]

| > The compiler should be able to eliminate many of the conditionals.
| Yes but no, there are cases that the compiler can't eliminate the
| conditionals that depend on run-time, e.g., "n" is non-constant parameter.

What is the performance penalty compared to the actual allocation work
on "typical" modern systems?

-- Gaby

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: J.C. Pizarro

References:
- Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: Karl Chen
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: J.C. Pizarro
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: Karl Chen
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: Lawrence Crowl
- Re: Integer overflow in operator new
  - From: J.C. Pizarro

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]