Messages in this thread | | | From | David Holland <> | Subject | Re: libc 5.3.6 BREAKS accelx! | Date | Fri, 15 Mar 1996 20:57:27 -0500 (EST) |
| |
> I think it is great that we have a faster and better malloc for libc but > I think it should not be at the expense of compatibility. I think that we > should all still be able to write our own mallocs if we want to and not > have libc break it. So if we can find a way to still use dl-malloc and > have other mallocs coexist with it, that would be great.
You're missing a point, namely, that any replacement malloc that doesn't implement valloc has always been broken; it's just that the breakage is only visible with the new malloc.
Suggestion: all the places in libc that call valloc should free the memory with vfree(), which is to be a new function.
This removes the problems with calling __libc_valloc directly. There is still a cost in compatibility, this time probably with POSIX (someone who has the relevant POSIX want to share what it says about valloc, or tell us it doesn't?)
-- - David A. Holland | Number of words in the English language that dholland@hcs.harvard.edu | exist because of typos or misreadings: 381
| |