change log for rtems (2011-07-01)

[Sebastian Huber]

On 03/07/11 19:46, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> On 07/03/2011 12:49 PM, Sebastian Huber wrote:
>> On 01/07/11 21:11, rtems-vc at rtems.org wrote:
>>> diff -u rtems/cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_initialize.c:1.14 
>>> rtems/cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_initialize.c:1.15
>>> --- rtems/cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_initialize.c:1.14    Wed Aug 
>>> 25 09:30:01 2010
>>> +++ rtems/cpukit/libcsupport/src/malloc_initialize.c    Fri Jul  1 
>>> 13:23:09 2011
>>> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@
>>>    {
>>>      /*
>>>       *  If configured, initialize the statistics support
>>> -  */
>>> +   */
>>>      if ( rtems_malloc_statistics_helpers != NULL ) {
>>>        (*rtems_malloc_statistics_helpers->initialize)();
>>>      }
>>> @@ -59,11 +59,13 @@
>>>       *  Initialize the optional sbrk support for extending the heap
>>>       */
>>>      if ( rtems_malloc_sbrk_helpers != NULL ) {
>>> -    heap_begin = (*rtems_malloc_sbrk_helpers->initialize)(
>>> +    void *new_heap_begin = (*rtems_malloc_sbrk_helpers->initialize)(
>>>          heap_begin,
>>>          sbrk_amount
>>>        );
>>> -    heap_size  = (uintptr_t) sbrk_amount;
>>> +
>>> +    heap_size -= (uintptr_t) new_heap_begin - (uintptr_t) heap_begin;
>>> +    heap_begin = new_heap_begin;
>> With this change libtests/malloc04 fails.
> On what BSP?  It passed on psim which failed everything before it
> was reverted.

I think this passed only by accident.  In the test we have heap_begin == 
NULL == 0x0.  If the memory starts not at 0x0 the problem becomes obvious.

>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-vc mailing list
>> rtems-vc at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-vc
>