Author vstinner
Recipients josh.r, jtaylor, neologix, njs, pitrou, skrah, vstinner
Date 2014-04-27.09:51:45
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAMpsgwa6Zmp2uUtBjhKAO8r-sJJT2nP4O0KWAiue+HNMxgwDFA@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <CAH_1eM346H24rPVVZU8us88tZ7op9Azw_3KsOpZk1zD4q4DK8Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content
2014-04-27 10:30 GMT+02:00 Charles-François Natali <report@bugs.python.org>:
>> I read again some remarks about alignement, it was suggested to provide allocators providing an address aligned to a requested alignement. This topic was already discussed in #18835.
>
> The alignement issue is really orthogonal to the calloc one, so IMO
> this shouldn't be discussed here (and FWIW I don't think we should
> expose those: alignement only matters either for concurrency or SIMD
> instructions, and I don't think we should try to standardize this kind
> of API, it's way to special-purpose (then we'd have to think about
> huge pages, etc...). Whereas calloc is a simple and immediately useful
> addition, not only for Numpy but also CPython).

This issue was opened to be able to use tracemalloc on numpy. I would
like to make sure that calloc is enough for numpy. I would prefer to
change the malloc API only once.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-04-27 09:51:46vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, pitrou, njs, skrah, neologix, jtaylor, josh.r
2014-04-27 09:51:46vstinnerlinkissue21233 messages
2014-04-27 09:51:45vstinnercreate