On Sat, 27 May 2023 11:50:11 GMT, Thomas Stuefe <stu...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> This one is not just to get rid of a warning. We get real test errors >>> because malloc gets replaced by vec_malloc in log tags. >> >> That does not invalidate my argument, nor does it answer my question. Those >> test errors could be also fixed by renaming the log tag. Maybe that would be >> the better way. >> >> Also, I'm curious, why does it not complain about "free", which is a logtag >> as well? > > I am basically worried that undefining malloc, even if it seems harmless now, > exposes us to difficult-to-investigate problems down the road, since it > depends on how the libc devs will reform those macros in the future. I would > prefer a simple solution that does not depend on how the libc includes evolve. Is it possible to see the stdlib.h source code that is being a problem? Maybe more eyes can come up with a better solution, or at least come to a better understanding of why we have to go this way. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14146#discussion_r1208039639
