--Jauder
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, David Holland wrote:
> > 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
>
>
.sig under construction