Closed Oleksandr-Matasoft closed 3 months ago
Yikes -- thanks for spotting this :-). Fortunately, the order does not matter as we calculate count * size
for the total allocation size (just checking for overflow), pheew.
Thanks again -- I just fixed it.
In https://github.com/microsoft/mimalloc/blob/08fa864605a3d4d38e4ff4c44f21a72a4ada90c3/src/alloc.c#L532
Or naming is incorrect or it's an argument swap error
Because at definition
mi_heap_alloc_new_n(mi_heap_t* heap, size_t count, size_t size) // count goes before size