Patches for christmas...

Per Hedeland per@REDACTED
Fri Dec 31 00:06:23 CET 1999

Enrique Sanchez Vela <esanchez@REDACTED> wrote:
>  I belive the erl_exit call made out of safe_alloca and CHECK_MEMORY should
>be using CERR as parameter instead of 1, since using 1 instructs sys_printf
>to put the output in a temporal buffer who needs safe_alloca and
>CHECK_MEMORY to succeed in order to be a valid memory location.

Hmm, sounds like a catch-22:-) - we'll need to check that out, but with
a correct configure check for EXTRA_POINTER_BITS, you shouldn't end up
with *all* memory being "unusable".

>  I also applied the patch as described here to fix the problem with
>extra_pointer bits and did not help at all, it again assign a 0x20000000
>which will never make a match with the 0xc0000000 value of UNSAFE_MASK. If I
>change the value to 0xe0000000 it works well as well if I undef the
>Extra_pointer_bits value.

Strange, I can't see how the configure test could come up with
0x20000000 when using a mask of 0xc0000000 - you do realize that you
have to apply the patches to a "virgin" distribution and then run


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list