From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 12:58:38 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" Subject: RE: [Lhms-devel] [PATCH 0/7] Fragmentation Avoidance V19 Message-ID: <93700000.1131397118@flay> In-Reply-To: <20051107205532.CF888185988@thermo.lanl.gov> References: <20051107205532.CF888185988@thermo.lanl.gov> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andy Nelson , agl@us.ibm.com, rohit.seth@intel.com Cc: ak@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, arjan@infradead.org, arjanv@infradead.org, gmaxwell@gmail.com, haveblue@us.ibm.com, kravetz@us.ibm.com, lhms-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mel@csn.ul.ie, mingo@elte.hu, nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, torvalds@osdl.org List-ID: >> Isn't it true that most of the times we'll need to be worrying about >> run-time allocation of memory (using malloc or such) as compared to >> static. > > Perhaps for C. Not neccessarily true for Fortran. I don't know > anything about how memory allocations proceed there, but there > are no `malloc' calls (at least with that spelling) in the language > itself, and I don't know what it does for either static or dynamic > allocations under the hood. It could be malloc like or whatever > else. In the language itself, there are language features for > allocating and deallocating memory and I've seen code that > uses them, but haven't played with it myself, since my codes > need pretty much all the various pieces memory all the time, > and so are simply statically defined. Doesn't fortran shove everything in BSS to make some truly monsterous segment? M. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org