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: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>, DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Cc:
- Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 10:34:20 -0300
- 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>
Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> writes:
> * 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.
Do you plan to change it for 2.24?
Let me elaborate...
Right now, both tcmalloc and jemalloc cannot link statically against glibc
2.24 and I'm trying to:
- Make they link statically again.
- Remove all references to __malloc_initialize_hook (even outdated source
code comments).
- Stop using all the other malloc hooks.
- Improve documentation on this, so that we can provide an answer to the
following open questions:
- https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2765
- https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16939
--
Tulio Magno