Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:03:01 -0600 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New libc malloc patch Message-ID: <20051212020301.GJ95420@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <FA8E6DB7-A1A3-4F19-9850-756E48DB97D7@canonware.com> References: <B6653214-2181-4342-854D-323979D23EE8@canonware.com> <Pine.LNX.4.53.0511291121360.27754@regurgitate.ugcs.caltech.edu> <0B746373-8C29-4ADF-9218-311AE08F3834@canonware.com> <b41c75520512031245q48521143m@mail.gmail.com> <7318D807-9086-4817-A40B-50D6960880FB@canonware.com> <b41c75520512040451t360eb01u@mail.gmail.com> <12CA5E15-D006-441D-A24C-1BCD1A69D740@canonware.com> <439CC5DA.3080103@elischer.org> <FA8E6DB7-A1A3-4F19-9850-756E48DB97D7@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In the last episode (Dec 11), Jason Evans said: > On Dec 11, 2005, at 4:35 PM, Julian Elischer wrote: > > Is there no way to make it an option for a while? that would get > > good testing AND a fallback for people. > > Unfortunately, there are some low level issues that make the two > malloc implementations incompatible, and they both need access to > libc internals in order to work correctly in a multi-threaded > program. The way I have been comparing the two implementations is > via chroot installations. It might be possible to make the two > compatible (would require extra coding), but since both of them need > to be part of libc, we would need a way of building separate libc > libraries for the two mallocs. This all seems uglier than it's worth > to me. Maybe there's another way... I have had good results by simply compiling malloc.c into a shared library and loading it via LD_PRELOAD. Works enough to run mozilla at least. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20051212020301.GJ95420>