This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: bug in ggc-page?
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>, gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: zack at codesourcery dot com, rth at redhat dot com
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:01:39 -0800
- Subject: Re: bug in ggc-page?
--On Monday, December 16, 2002 11:25:08 AM -0500 Daniel Berlin
<dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
(I'm not quite sure who originally added the extra_order_size_table, and
the inverse_table, annotate tells me it's probably one of you three)
Wasn't me. :-)
But they only occur if the page is for "order <x>" objects, where x > 31.
I don't see anything *fundamentally* broken here, but there is some
definite weirdness in the types uses.
Since the object_size_table is full of size_t objects, the objects in the
inverse_table probably should be too, as should the local variables in
compute_inverse. (Right now they are just "unsigned".) So, on a machine
with 64-bit size_t, but 32-bit unsigned, we're going to get weirdness.
Does making that change help?
--
Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com