Closed michaelsippel closed 10 months ago
Here I'm still getting warnings which I dont understand
warning: 'short unsigned int __atomic_fetch_sub_2(volatile void*, short unsigned int, int)' writing 2 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=]
645 | { return __atomic_fetch_sub(&_M_i, __i, int(__m)); }
Here I'm still getting warnings which I dont understand
warning: 'short unsigned int __atomic_fetch_sub_2(volatile void*, short unsigned int, int)' writing 2 bytes into a region of size 0 overflows the destination [-Wstringop-overflow=] 645 | { return __atomic_fetch_sub(&_M_i, __i, int(__m)); }
Could it be a hint that some data are unaligned?
@michaelsippel Is this PR a replacement for #45?
Yes you are right, this PR does not include the fix for the double allocation / memory leak yet , #45 is still neccesary, either one needs to be rebased
I opened a PR against your PR to solve the double free and alloc issue: https://github.com/michaelsippel/redGrapes/pull/1 My local tests works well, please have a look. As I wrote before it is not necessary that #45 get merged if this PR is solving the big issue with the double alloc and free.
…to save overhead of address calculation and allow more efficient packing of ItemAccess
chunk_capacity
, not allocation sizememory::Block
memory::Block
has_item
of ItemAccess into one 8-byte pointer using bitmagic