Justus Winter, on Sat 02 Jan 2016 01:24:23 +0100, wrote:
> But I don't know the motivation for having it statically linked in the
> first place, so I wasn't sure if it's ok to do that.
I don't know either, but I don't see why it should pose problem.
Samuel
Quoting Samuel Thibault (2016-01-01 18:02:47)
> Applied, thanks!
Actually, I'd prefer it if mach-defpager was not statically linked. I
have a patch that does that (it's trivial), and am using that for a
while now without any perceivable ill-effects. But I don't know the
motivation for having it
Applied, thanks!
* mach-defpager/Makefile: Allow multiple definitions for mach-defpager.
---
Seems my patch for mach-defpager that replaced the deprecated
malloc_hook/free_hook with malloc and free implementations does not play
well with static linking. Since I had another patch that fixed some
other issue in my
