From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Oct  8 09:58:52 2003
Return-Path: <owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79ABF16A4B3
	for <cvs-all@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Oct 2003 09:58:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rootlabs.com (root.org [67.118.192.226])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E07BA43FF2
	for <cvs-all@freebsd.org>; Wed,  8 Oct 2003 09:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@rootlabs.com)
Received: (qmail 10552 invoked by uid 1000); 8 Oct 2003 16:58:48 -0000
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2003 09:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
In-Reply-To: <20031008201225.U4605@gamplex.bde.org>
Message-ID: <20031008095806.D10515@root.org>
References: <200310080737.h987bBYS028838@repoman.freebsd.org>
 <20031008201225.U4605@gamplex.bde.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org
cc: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>
cc: src-committers@freebsd.org
cc: cvs-all@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sbin/savecore savecore.c
X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree <cvs-all.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all>
List-Post: <mailto:cvs-all@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-all>,
	<mailto:cvs-all-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 16:58:52 -0000

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Bruce Evans wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Oct 2003, Marcel Moolenaar wrote:
> >   Modified files:
> >     sbin/savecore        savecore.c
> >   Log:
> >   Revision 1.61 changed the allocation of buffer 'buf' in DoFile() from
> >   the stack to the heap to work around a problem on ia64. Now, roughly
> >   16 months and two compiler updates later, it isn't an issue anymore
> >   in the sense that putting a 1M buffer on the stack just works and we
> >   don't actually need to work around anything anymore.
> >   However, since there's no advantage or need to put the buffer on the
> >   stack (again), this change merely removes the XXX comment describing
> >   that there's an explicit reason for the heap allocation. Hence, this
> >   change is a functional no-op.
>
> There is a negative advantage to putting the buffer on the stack.  It asks
> for a misaligned buffer.
>
> Bruce

That's why I'm glad he left the malloc() in.

-Nate