Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Stuart Henderson
On 2016-11-23, Philippe Meunier wrote: > Does anyone know of a relatively common program for which S > is a human-noticeable performance hit? vim with syntax highlighting. As a simple example just opening a file, the visible effect is a small extra delay, and easy

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Theo Buehler
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:55:52AM -0500, Philippe Meunier wrote: > Otto Moerbeek wrote: > >It is not a problem of crashing or not, S does incur a performance hit > >that we are not willing accept by default. > > I've seen this claim several times on this mailing list over the past > few years

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Philippe Meunier
Otto Moerbeek wrote: >Here the difference is even bigger (about 68%). I think that shows >enough why S isn't the default (apart from buggy third party >software). Fair enough. Cheers, Philippe

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 06:55:52AM -0500, Philippe Meunier wrote: > Otto Moerbeek wrote: > >It is not a problem of crashing or not, S does incur a performance hit > >that we are not willing accept by default. > > I've seen this claim several times on this mailing list over the past > few years

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Philippe Meunier
Otto Moerbeek wrote: >It is not a problem of crashing or not, S does incur a performance hit >that we are not willing accept by default. I've seen this claim several times on this mailing list over the past few years but does anyone have actual data about it? How much of a performance hit is it

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-23 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 10:18:32PM +0100, Benjamin Baier wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:44:48 +0100 > "minek van" wrote: > > > So why isn't "S" enabled by default? It is the "most secure" solution for > > the > > malloc settings, no? > > Or are there still programs that

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-22 Thread Benjamin Baier
On Tue, 22 Nov 2016 19:44:48 +0100 "minek van" wrote: > So why isn't "S" enabled by default? It is the "most secure" solution for the > malloc settings, no? > Or are there still programs that will crash when "S" is used? > What are those? Adding new printer on the CUPS

Re: Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-22 Thread Otto Moerbeek
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 07:44:48PM +0100, minek van wrote: > I gaved it a try, all sets installed, xdm starts X. > after first boot > pkg_add firefox libreoffice gimp > ln -s S /etc/malloc.conf > reboot > > all done in virtualbox. > > With or without "S" the 360p testvideo lags.. but

Why not use malloc S by default?

2016-11-22 Thread minek van
I gaved it a try, all sets installed, xdm starts X. after first boot pkg_add firefox libreoffice gimp ln -s S /etc/malloc.conf reboot all done in virtualbox. With or without "S" the 360p testvideo lags.. but virtualbox. So tried Firefox, GIMP, LibreOffice All looks working great. So why