Re: malloc options

2008-07-27 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 21:55:39 -0400 (EDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Karl Vogel) wrote: >>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:36:35 -0700, >>> Doug Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > D> The program has worked under considerable load for many years with > D> versions 3.7 to 6.2. Problems only occur with 7.0. The

Re: malloc options

2008-07-27 Thread Karl Vogel
>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:36:35 -0700, >> Doug Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: D> The program has worked under considerable load for many years with versions D> 3.7 to 6.2. Problems only occur with 7.0. The program is quite complex D> and big. It uses probably hundreds of mallocs in a typical

Re: malloc options

2008-07-27 Thread Wojciech Puchar
/etc/malloc.conf. The default for that file is to not exist. The man page does not indicate which settings are used in that situation. After reading through it I get the feeling that the default settings for D and M are 'dM'. Hence, to return to the older malloc aproach to see if the problems

Re: malloc options

2008-07-27 Thread Ivan Voras
Doug Hardie wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, at 19:03, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: While that's understandable, the current malloc() has undergone quite extensive testing by Jason Evans and a lot of people who use it in FreeBSD 7.X or later. Its ability to expose bugs in this way was deemed important eno

Re: malloc options

2008-07-27 Thread Kris Kennaway
Doug Hardie wrote: On Jul 26, 2008, at 19:03, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: While that's understandable, the current malloc() has undergone quite extensive testing by Jason Evans and a lot of people who use it in FreeBSD 7.X or later. Its ability to expose bugs in this way was deemed important eno

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Doug Hardie
On Jul 26, 2008, at 19:03, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: While that's understandable, the current malloc() has undergone quite extensive testing by Jason Evans and a lot of people who use it in FreeBSD 7.X or later. Its ability to expose bugs in this way was deemed important enough that it is no

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Doug Hardie
On Jul 26, 2008, at 18:47, Ivan Voras wrote: Doug Hardie wrote: If you did recompile it and it is behaving differently then it is probably because your program contains bugs in how it manages memory that happened to be working by accident with the old memory allocator. e.g. because you w

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 17:36:35 -0700, Doug Hardie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 26, 2008, at 17:10, Kris Kennaway wrote: >> Firstly, if you did not recompile the program under 7.0 then it is not >> using the new malloc at all. > > It was recompiled. All there is on the system is new stuff. It

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Ivan Voras
Doug Hardie wrote: If you did recompile it and it is behaving differently then it is probably because your program contains bugs in how it manages memory that happened to be working by accident with the old memory allocator. e.g. because you were making use of memory after it had been freed,

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Doug Hardie
On Jul 26, 2008, at 17:10, Kris Kennaway wrote: Doug Hardie wrote: I have a program that has run correctly since FreeBSD 3.7. However, when upgrading the server to 7.0 I am encountering issues where values just seem to arbirtrarily change. These values are all located in memory allocate

Re: malloc options

2008-07-26 Thread Kris Kennaway
Doug Hardie wrote: I have a program that has run correctly since FreeBSD 3.7. However, when upgrading the server to 7.0 I am encountering issues where values just seem to arbirtrarily change. These values are all located in memory allocated by malloc. Malloc was significantly changed with 7.