From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Dec 23 14:24:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B762516A420; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:24:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from speedfactory.net (mail6.speedfactory.net [66.23.216.219]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3053143D62; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:24:01 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (unverified [66.23.211.162]) by speedfactory.net (SurgeMail 3.5b3) with ESMTP id 4425589 for multiple; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:25:18 -0500 Received: from zion.baldwin.cx (zion.baldwin.cx [192.168.0.7]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id jBNENZ70043122; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:23:35 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Daniel Eischen Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:21:18 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.3 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200512230921.20887.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.87.1, clamav-milter version 0.87 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=4.2 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.1.0 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on server.baldwin.cx X-Server: High Performance Mail Server - http://surgemail.com r=1653887525 Cc: Jason Evans Subject: Re: New malloc ready, take 42 X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:24:07 -0000 On Friday 23 December 2005 08:35 am, Daniel Eischen wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Scott Long wrote: > > > Another thing that I worry about is complex library scenarios where y= ou > > > might have different versions of libc getting pulled into the same > > > process by different library dependencies. This could turn into a big > > > headache that is only solvable by telling people to wipe out their > > > entire ports collection and rebuild from scratch. Does this warrant a > > > library version bump now (as much as I really don't want to advocate > > > this)? > > > > Please, no more library version bumps (ever, hopefully). That's > > what we have library versioning for. Also, I don't see how > > I meant symbol versioning... > > > this changes external APIs (ABI) any more than we've done in > > the past when adding interfaces. We're adding posix_memalign() > > and the __malloc_foofork() interfaces for our thread libraries. > > I think if you have more than one version of libc linked > into your program, you might be hosed regardless of the > malloc changes. There's other global data in libc that > may confuse the implementation when there is more than > one instance of it. Have we ever guaranteed that you could > do that? No, you're already screwed in that case. This will only be potentially=20 painful for folks using -current (since 7.0's libc will either be libc.so.7= =20 or have symbol versioning in use) and it's ok to create temporary pain for= =20 folks running -current. =2D-=20 John Baldwin =A0<>< =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve" =A0=3D =A0http://www.FreeBSD.org