Date: Mon, 22 Jun 1998 17:05:39 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: dima@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru (Dmitrij Tejblum) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, joelh@gnu.org, fenner@parc.xerox.com, peter@netplex.com.au, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bogus errno twiddling by lstat... Message-ID: <199806221705.KAA10780@usr06.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199806202159.BAA01831@tejblum.dnttm.rssi.ru> from "Dmitrij Tejblum" at Jun 21, 98 01:59:22 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Since the malloc.conf file is unnecessarily being looked for in the > > printf case (since ld.so already caused it to be looked for, and didn't > > find it), I think the redundant call to llok for it is certainly worth > > removing. > > You have repeated this misinformation at least 10th times, I think. > malloc.conf looked up only on first call to malloc(). ld.so probably > call malloc() from the C library quite rare. Do you remember the discussion about the __error hacks to ld.so? Initially when I was attempting to use weak symbols as they are documented to work (but they don't), I had a number of myseterious lockups on startup. The problem was recursion on the __errno initialization in the malloc code in libc. I can send you a ktrace, if you need one to believe it. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199806221705.KAA10780>