Date: 14 Mar 2002 02:02:29 -0500 From: Brandon S Allbery KF8NH <allbery@ece.cmu.edu> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: malloc() and the stock Perl in -CURRENT (and -STABLE) Message-ID: <1016089354.1226.5.camel@pyanfar.ece.cmu.edu> In-Reply-To: <20020313224812.A21067@xor.obsecurity.org> References: <20020314104525.B8244@office.naver.co.id> <20020314052810.GH74829@elvis.mu.org> <20020314124729.E8244@office.naver.co.id> <20020313223647.A20636@xor.obsecurity.org> <20020313224208.K27616@nexus.root.com> <20020313224812.A21067@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 01:48, Kris Kennaway wrote: > It should be benchmarked more thoroughly before the switch is made; > there's only one datapoint at the moment, which isn't enough to decide > whether it's a net win. Another thing to watch out for: we now force -Uusemymalloc in perl builds because mixing malloc() implementations can lead to core dumps when a chunk of memory is handed to the wrong version of free() (or realloc()). (A test of this is to use Data::Dumper->Dump() (*not* Dumpxs()! that is in fact the workaround...) to print lots of complex hashes; this fairly reliably makes perl dump core (or sometimes just die with a "Bizarre copy of ...") on all our supported platforms when perl's malloc() is used. Of course, that might just be a bug in 5.00503, since I never tried 5.6.x with perl's own malloc()...) -- brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu electrical and computer engineering KF8NH carnegie mellon university ["better check the oblivious first" -ke6sls] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1016089354.1226.5.camel>