Re: [Patch] Remove use of sbrk

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Patch] Remove use of sbrk

Simon Marchi-2
> Hi,
>
> this patch removes the reports of data size based on sbrk.
>
> The rational is:
> * I got warnings (and thus build failure unless --disable-werror) on Darwin, as sbrk(2) is
>   marked as deprecated. (I agree that this point is very minor).
> * I seriously doubt about the accuracy of memory usage as reported by sbrk(2) as malloc doesn't
>   allocate all its memory with sbrk. I also doubt that this is often used by developers as
>   there are much more advanced tools to investigate performance issues.
>
> Any comments ? Ok for trunk ?
>
> Tristan.

Hi Tristan,

I was looking into this issue and found that you tackled this a while ago.  You patch looks acceptable
to me, and nobody opposed to it, so I was wondering what was the status.  Did it simply fall through
the cracks?

On macOS, it doesn't even give results that make sense:

  ./nm-new: data size -140731891278888

Thanks,

Simon
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Patch] Remove use of sbrk

Tristan Gingold-2

> On 25 Jun 2017, at 13:48, Simon Marchi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this patch removes the reports of data size based on sbrk.
>>
>> The rational is:
>> * I got warnings (and thus build failure unless --disable-werror) on Darwin, as sbrk(2) is
>>  marked as deprecated. (I agree that this point is very minor).
>> * I seriously doubt about the accuracy of memory usage as reported by sbrk(2) as malloc doesn't
>>  allocate all its memory with sbrk. I also doubt that this is often used by developers as
>>  there are much more advanced tools to investigate performance issues.
>>
>> Any comments ? Ok for trunk ?
>>
>> Tristan.
>
> Hi Tristan,
>
> I was looking into this issue and found that you tackled this a while ago.  You patch looks acceptable
> to me, and nobody opposed to it, so I was wondering what was the status.  Did it simply fall through
> the cracks?
>
> On macOS, it doesn't even give results that make sense:
>
>  ./nm-new: data size -140731891278888

I was not sure about a consensus on this point.  Maybe worth asking directly:
Is someone against suppressing sbrk() calls ?

Tristan.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Patch] Remove use of sbrk

Alan Modra-3
On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 03:50:14PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> I was not sure about a consensus on this point.  Maybe worth asking directly:
> Is someone against suppressing sbrk() calls ?

People have already had three years and six months to comment.  Please
go ahead and commit the patch, if you still think it is good.

--
Alan Modra
Australia Development Lab, IBM
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Patch] Remove use of sbrk

Tristan Gingold-2

> On 04 Jul 2017, at 04:04, Alan Modra <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 03:50:14PM +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
>> I was not sure about a consensus on this point.  Maybe worth asking directly:
>> Is someone against suppressing sbrk() calls ?
>
> People have already had three years and six months to comment.  Please
> go ahead and commit the patch, if you still think it is good.

Just committed.

Tristan.