On 12/ 8/08 03:00 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
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.
OK. Not sure I am willing to take the risk at this point. Also, note
that the linker issue is being investigated at the moment.
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
indeed ? OK.
Thanks,
Serge
a lot more checking.
Chet
