From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Dec 12 02:03:26 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1D4916A420 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:03:26 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16EF043D45 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:03:25 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.13.1/8.13.3) id jBC231Fs006967; Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:03:01 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from dan) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 20:03:01 -0600 From: Dan Nelson To: Jason Evans Message-ID: <20051212020301.GJ95420@dan.emsphone.com> References: <0B746373-8C29-4ADF-9218-311AE08F3834@canonware.com> <7318D807-9086-4817-A40B-50D6960880FB@canonware.com> <12CA5E15-D006-441D-A24C-1BCD1A69D740@canonware.com> <439CC5DA.3080103@elischer.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-OS: FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Cc: Julian Elischer , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: New libc malloc patch X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 02:03:26 -0000 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