Serge Dussud wrote: > Indeed, ld(1)'s -z interpose option is a rather big hammer, as it > establishes that the application can interpose on *all* of the symbols > that it offers, rather than just the few related to malloc.
That might be a problem if there are some public symbols in libc that bash happens to use, but bash is pretty careful to replace libc functions only if they're missing or somehow substandard. > Hence, my question to you is: are there any real benefit these days of > using bash's own malloc function rather than the one from the system ? > or, otherwise said, what do bash lose when it's compiled with option > --without-bash-malloc ? The bash malloc is a lot faster than the Solaris malloc, and it performs a lot more checking. Chet -- ``The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne.'' - Chaucer Chet Ramey, ITS, CWRU [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/
