This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?

From: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
To: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, Libc-alpha Mailing List <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 14:40:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
References: <87eg6cuwp7.fsf@totoro.br.ibm.com>

On 07/29/2016 02:27 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:


According to the __malloc_hook man page [1]

    Programmers should instead preempt calls to the relevant functions by
    defining and exporting functions such as "malloc" and "free".

But malloc, free and realloc are all global functions, causing problems when
linking statically.

Shouldn't they be weak functions?

I don't think so. With those non-weak definition, the static linkerenforces that you interpose *all* malloc-related APIs in use.


Florian

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
  - From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho

References:
- Should malloc-related functions be weak?
  - From: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]