Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:46:54 -0500 From: Steve Kiernan <stevek@juniper.net> To: Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [JNPR] Proposal to add weak symbols for malloc, realloc, and free to libc Message-ID: <20130117184654.06f8e330@stevek-ubuntu> In-Reply-To: <E4A1FEFD-B267-422B-8051-443B1F8519E1@canonware.com> References: <20130117161311.4c15c7c4@stevek-ubuntu> <E4A1FEFD-B267-422B-8051-443B1F8519E1@canonware.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:42:19 -0800 Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com> wrote: > On Jan 17, 2013, at 1:13 PM, Steve Kiernan wrote: > > When libc was changed to use jemalloc, the weak symbols for malloc, realloc, and free ended up being removed. > > This makes it a bit difficult for an application to replace (or augment) the malloc implementation. > > > > This proposal is to add back the weak symbols similar to how they existed in libc prior to jemalloc introduction. > > > > See the following patch for the changes: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~marcel/Juniper/weak-malloc.diff > > > > I'm not sure if the the symbols are in the proper place in the Symbol.map file and would welcome comments. > > What about calloc(), posix_memalign(), and malloc_usable_size()? Similarly, I think the *allocm() functions in -current may need the same treatment. I think you are correct and those would probably be necessary, as well, yes. It looked like previously, calloc was not made weak because it was implemented in terms of malloc, but since that is not the case in jemalloc, it will need to be addressed. I'll update the patch. -- Stephen J. Kiernan Juniper Networks, Inc. stevek_at_juniper.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130117184654.06f8e330>