This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2016 11:25:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87eg6cuwp7.fsf@totoro.br.ibm.com> <xnbn1ed1p8.fsf@greed.delorie.com> <87oa5d29xf.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
On 07/31/2016 02:50 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * DJ Delorie:
>
>> "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>>> Shouldn't they be weak functions?
>>
>> I can imagine the mess that would happen if someone overwrode malloc()
>> but not free()...
>
> The problem is with the other symbols Tulio identified. I'll try to
> see if providing weak stubs for them addresses the issue.
>
Are these other symbols meant be overridden? If so, shouldn't they be
overridden as a group? In any case, maybe move them to a separate .o file
instead, so that the linker either pulls all in, or none, and thus complains
if the program overrides __malloc_fork_lock_parent but
not __malloc_fork_unlock_parent, but doesn't complain if the program
overrides malloc/free, etc.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves