[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 21:52:38 +0100 (CET)

On Sun, 11 Nov 2001, Paul Davis wrote:

> i have no problem with that. the issue is: why is there any support
> for this on a per-library basis? i may have mentioned before that most
> of my programs use libhoard, which completely replaces malloc,free and
> realloc with ultra-fast-for-SMP-multithreaded equivalents. why on
> earth do i want to tell ltdl (or any other particular library) to be
> using a version of malloc/free/realloc that's any different from the
> one used by the rest of the libraries linked to my progam? replacing
> malloc() is often a good idea. but replacing malloc on a per-library
> basis? why?
> and besides, if you pass an acquired resource to an API, then you
> either have to specify that its not the API's job to release it, or
> provide the API with a way to do so. Since lt_dlmalloc() and
> lt_dlfree() are intended for use entirely *within* the library, they
> do not cover this condition, as far as i can see.

If lt_dlmalloc() and lt_dlfree() are intended for internal use only, these
pointers do not make any sense, I agree.  I suppose the native
implementation of malloc(), free() and realloc() will always be the best
choice then.  Would really like to know a reason then, either.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]