On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 11:11:52AM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: > On May 27, 2014, at 8:38 PM, Mike Hommey <mh+jemal...@glandium.org> > wrote: > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 04:10:39PM -0700, Jason Evans wrote: > >>> As for running tests, the following unit tests crash: - ckh - > >>> rtree - tsd > >>> > >>> They all crash in malloc_tsd_malloc, which is fishy. > >> > >> Probably a bootstrapping order issue, but I don't have any concrete > >> guesses as to how it's failing. > > > > And it is. It is caused by those tests assuming that jemalloc is > > initialized as a side effect of the constructor added in > > 20f1fc95adb35ea63dc61f47f2b0ffbd37d39f32, which doesn't run on msvc > > builds, and is not needed since there is no fork(). > > > > Do you think it's better to make jemalloc initialize itself on msvc > > builds anyways, or to make those tests explicitely initialize > > jemalloc? > > I just made a small change to the test harness to address this: > > > https://github.com/jemalloc/jemalloc/commit/26f44df742893306a53a90328e15a62ed11b9e57 > > I'd rather initialization be automatic so that we don't run into this > sort of test fragility in the future. Let me know if the diff doesn't > do the right thing for some reason.
So, interestingly, this makes SFMT work, while calling malloc_init from _init_init_lock makes it crash. However, contrary to calling malloc_init from _init_init_lock, it doesn't fix test/unit/tsd. I'll check what's wrong with that one. Cheers, Mike _______________________________________________ jemalloc-discuss mailing list jemalloc-discuss@canonware.com http://www.canonware.com/mailman/listinfo/jemalloc-discuss
