[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt |
Date: |
Tue, 04 Mar 2014 05:45:06 +0200 |
> Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 18:20:09 -0500
> From: Ken Brown <kbrown@cornell.edu>
> CC: 16901@debbugs.gnu.org, dmantipov@yandex.ru
>
> If adj == 0 in line 1596, then we've allocated much more memory than
> we needed, and the next call to malloc (line 1602) allocates even
> more. And if adj == 1 in line 1596, then we've allocated exactly as
> much memory as we needed, so there's no need to call malloc again in
> line 1602.
Thanks for reviewing.
These are further optimizations, and can (and probably should) be done
in separate commits. But you aren't saying that the previous code was
correct, are you?
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, (continued)
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/01
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Drew Adams, 2014/03/01
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/03/01
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/02
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/03/02
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/03
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/03/03
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/03
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Juanma Barranquero, 2014/03/03
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Ken Brown, 2014/03/03
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Ken Brown, 2014/03/04
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/04
- bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Ken Brown, 2014/03/04
bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/01
bug#16901: 24.3.50; emacs_backtrace.txt, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/03/20