[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug).
From: |
stefan |
Subject: |
Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug). |
Date: |
Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:41:52 +0100 (CET) |
Paul Davis address@hidden wrote:
> > > what is any of this for in the first place?
> >
> >You mean why do we allos someone to define lt_dlmalloc, lt_dlrealloc,
> >and lt_dlfree? I don't know :)
>
> yes, thats precisely what i mean. what problem is this attempting to
> solve? some bizarre platform where ltdl.c can't call malloc()?
Personally I consider this to be a good thing for libraries. It is useful
if you want to use a different (underlying) memory allocation API.
Imagine you want to pass part of a shared memory arena (IRIX uses such)
and libltdl.so tries to free() it with the standard libc call, this might
fail and crash the program. Also M$-Windows knows different
memory allocator APIs.
Cheers,
address@hidden
- ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Rob Browning, 2001/11/06
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., libtool, 2001/11/07
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Rob Browning, 2001/11/07
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Paul Davis, 2001/11/07
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., libtool, 2001/11/10
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Paul Davis, 2001/11/10
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., libtool, 2001/11/10
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Paul Davis, 2001/11/10
Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug)., Olly Betts, 2001/11/07
- Re: ltdl.c thinks it's psychic (another SEGFAULT bug).,
stefan <=