Terrence: > The libgc that is distributed with Sun Studio is a commercial product > that was produced by Geodesic (which has gone out of business). We have > the sources but no authorization to change or distribute them. > > I suspect that an implementation of a "Boehm-Demers-Weiser" GC being > maintained by Hans Boehm will not have stability or quality problems. > The compilers/tools group would have no objection to this version > superceding the one from Geodesic.
Would it make more sense for someone in the Compilers team to own libgc rather than the JDS desktop/Indiana team? Perhaps it is okay for JDS/Indiana to own it for now, but perhaps it should migrate over to the compilers team over time? Brian > Hugh McIntyre wrote: >> Irene Huang wrote: >>>> I am setting the timeout for this case to be Feb 13th. >>>> Please review the proposal at >>>> http://sac.eng/Archives/CaseLog/arc/LSARC/2008/068/proposal.txt >> I have no particular objection to this case, because there a bunch of >> FOSS that wants to use it. But, assuming Indiana plans to support >> installing the Studio compilers in future, would it be a good idea to >> add a short note to the end of any supplied man page to note: >> >> 1) The Studio compilers also supply a conflicting libgc.so under >> /opt/SUNWspro/lib/libgc.so. See >> http://developers.sun.com/solaris/articles/libgc.html. >> >> 2) The Studio version does not need people to edit their programs to >> replace malloc() with GC_MALLOC() and the like. But equally, someone >> compiling with the Studio compilers will probably pick up the Studio >> version first because of the default link path, even if they are >> expecting the version from /usr/lib in this case instead. >> >> Maybe there needs to be some provision here to avoid conflicts, or at >> least to tell people how to avoid getting such conflicts by mistake? >> >> Hugh. > _______________________________________________ > opensolaris-arc mailing list > opensolaris-arc at opensolaris.org
