On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:53 PM, "Mowry, Robert" <[email protected]> wrote: > I can understand the motivation behind wanting this to work, but when I > read the POSIX spec for threaded programs that call fork(), it seems > pretty clear that malloc() and free() etc are not defined to be safe to > call in the child process: > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/fork.html > > […] > > Is is that people want to go beyond what the spec calls out - and hence > the request to fix issues like this? Or are folks not aware they are > attempting to do something that's not really kosher?
In an idea world I would prefer to make no accommodation for such dangerous application behavior. However, I've heard many times, "But it works with [insert OS/allocator here]!" Thus, the problem is that there's a lot of dangerous code in the world that mostly works, and if jemalloc doesn't go to some extra trouble, it ends up not being a viable general purpose alternative. That said, I tend to play whack-a-mole with fork-related issues, because I personally don't think it's important enough to spend a bunch of time providing a rock-solid solution. =) Jason _______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
