Jonathan Adams wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:39:02AM -0600, Nicolas Williams wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 01:21:28AM -0500, Glenn Fowler wrote: > > > ast provides its own malloc/free, and those calls are mapped > > > to _ast_malloc/_ast_free in the ksh/ast code for opensolaris builds > > > so that call to free() in the stack trace was not done directly by > > > any ksh/ast code > > > > I believe this is a bad idea. On Solaris it'd be best to use the global > > malloc()/free() from libc (or interposed via pre-loading). > > > > Rationales: > > > > - you'll end up with two allocators, which means... > > - ...you need to be real sure that some allocation won't be free()ed by > > the wrong allocator, and... > > - you need to make sure no more than one allocator uses brk()/sbrk(); > > Again, this is not a problem, as long as: > > 1. neither sbrk() user assumes that consecutive calls return > consecutive addresses, > 2. no-one calls brk() to back up the break.
Is this the case for the libc and libumem implementations ? ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 3992797 (;O/ \/ \O;)
