From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Mar 27 9:32:46 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from zippy.dyn.ml.org (pm3-1.ppp.wenet.net [206.15.85.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D6D915482 for ; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 09:32:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Received: from localhost (garbanzo@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zippy.dyn.ml.org (8.9.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA08416; Sat, 27 Mar 1999 09:32:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from garbanzo@hooked.net) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 1999 09:32:13 -0800 (PST) From: Alex Zepeda To: Chuck Robey Cc: FreeBSD-Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ElectricFence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, 27 Mar 1999, Chuck Robey wrote: > Anyone out there who uses ElectricFence to catch malloc problems, and > knows the correct compile options to make certain that ElectricFence's > malloc, and not the libc malloc, gets called? I'm afraid just linking > with -lefence won't be enough to make the libefence malloc override the > libc malloc. I tend to assume if the EF startup screen is used (and you notice the massive slowdown) it's using the EF malloc. If you're still not convinced stick some debuggin printfs in there (or run it under gdb and set a breakpoint). - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message