bash-2.05b and --without-bash-malloc

Greg Schafer gschafer at
Sun May 11 15:59:44 PDT 2003

On Sun, May 11, 2003 at 11:14:17AM -0600, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> Should we add --without-bash-malloc to bash's configure script in chapters 5 
> and 6?


Thanks Gerard for asking the list when in doubt. Some people around here
think they know everything when they really haven't got a clue. I know
they're just trying to be helpful but please folks, if you don't positively
know what you're talking about then DON'T SAY IT ALL! Or at least don't say
it with the conviction that it is right when you know it could be wrong..

Ok enough ranting. Back to Gerard's query.

As the person who came up with --without-bash-malloc and who extensively
researched and tested the bash-2.05b failures back when it was first
releases I AM qualified to pass comment.

Fact: The static bash-2.05b had an obscure and hard to debug segfault which
mostly showed up when configuring binutils. I would estimate that about 50%
of peeps following the old LFS instructions would see the segfault. The bash
maintainer could not repro' and thus could not fix.

I came up with --without-bash-malloc to work around the Ch 5 problem. Ch 6
was always unaffected. Now that we are using a different build method there
is no need for it. Anyone running a bash-2.05b configured with
--without-bash-malloc is running a suboptimal shell.

So there :-)

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list