From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Mar 13 07:55:14 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id HAA05619 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:55:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from rocky.sri.MT.net (rocky.sri.MT.net [204.182.243.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id HAA05613 for ; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 07:55:11 -0800 (PST) Received: (from nate@localhost) by rocky.sri.MT.net (8.6.12/8.6.12) id IAA03216; Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:57:36 -0700 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 1996 08:57:36 -0700 From: Nate Williams Message-Id: <199603131557.IAA03216@rocky.sri.MT.net> To: "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" Cc: hackers@freefall.freebsd.org Subject: Re: new malloc/libc... In-Reply-To: <199603131411.OAA21221@exalt.x.org> References: <22076.826720491@critter.tfs.com> <199603131411.OAA21221@exalt.x.org> Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > > > There was a spattering of discussion about the new malloc existing in > > > -current, I seem to have lost track of it in the noise; did anybody > > > followup on the suggestion of putting a compiled libc on the ftp site? > > > Or are we limited to simply compiling it ourselves? > > > > I will probably make another stab at convincing the gang that "phkmalloc" > > should be put in 2.1, ... > > I think it would be an extremely bad idea to re-release 2.1 for any > reason. If you want to put the new malloc in an officially released > version before 2.2, then call it 2.1.1 or 2.1.phk or something, but > don't start rewriting history. I think you misunderstand. The next release of FreeBSD will be 2.1.5, but the CVS tag is the 2.1 tag. > Broken code is broken code. That's why you have ports, right? Since > gnumalloc is similar in some respects to phkmalloc Actually, GNU-malloc doesn't whine like Poul's does. Poul's whines about freeing non-malloc'd memory and other (good) errors which GNU-malloc doesn't. > I would tend to > believe that much of the broken software is being fixed by/for the > Linux crowd, and by the time 2.2 is officially released the latest- > and-greatest versions of most software should be less broken than they > are now. Wishful thinking perhaps?!? Wishful thinking. Look at the *huge* number of bugs in the GNU libc package. The GNU folks haven't released a new version since '94, but H.J. continues to fix huge numbers of bugs in it and releases a new version (with brand new bugs) every couple of months or so. Nate