This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@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: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2

From: Andreas Schwab <schwab at suse dot de>
To: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: law at redhat dot com, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,Roger Sayle <roger at eyesopen dot com>, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin dot org>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 00:47:07 +0100
Subject: Re: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
References: <41A21524.4050102@codesourcery.com><1101162070.27318.220.camel@localhost.localdomain><41A4687C.5000204@codesourcery.com>

Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com> writes:

> 2004-11-24  Nathan Sidwell  <nathan@codesourcery.com>
>
> 	* bitmap.c (bitmap_malloc_alloc, bitmap_malloc_free): Remove.
> 	* bitmap.h (bitmap_malloc_alloc, bitmap_malloc_free): Remove.
> 	(BITMAP_XMALLOC): Forward to BITMAP_OBSTACK_ALLOC.
> 	(BITMAP_XFREE): Forward to BITMAP_OBSTACK_FREE.

How can this work, given that you renamed BITMAP_OBSTACK_ALLOC to
BITMAP_ALLOC and BITMAP_OBSTACK_FREE to BITMAP_FREE just 2 days ago?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
  - From: Andrew Pinski
- Re: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

References:
- [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
  - From: Nathan Sidwell
- Re: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
  - From: Jeffrey A Law
- Re: [bitmap memory]: Allocation part 2
  - From: Nathan Sidwell

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