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

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Mon May 12 16:09:56 PDT 2003


On Mon, 12 May 2003 23:03:09 +0000 (UTC)
gschafer at zip.com.au (Greg Schafer) wrote:

> The default
> malloc would be the most widely tested and thus most likely the
> stabler for use in bash.

Huh?

that makes no sense - the malloc in glibc will be the most widely
tested. its used in almost everything.

its also garaunteed to do the right thing on whatever arch you are
running (if it doesnt, then compiling bash is the least of your worries.

So, there are three options:

1) The bash malloc is faster or more efficient (it wont be more tested,
for certain)

2) The bash malloc has some feature others dont that bash requires (not
likely)

3) The bash maintainer likes to get on his soapbox about malloc

I would be inclined to lean toward 3. Programmers often exhibit odd
preferences for libraries.

1 is always a possibility, but surely we would prefer the more tested
glibc malloc to some speed gain at the possible cost of stability?

2 I think is crazy talk.

-- 
Spyros lair: http://www.mnementh.co.uk/
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons, for you are tasty and good with
ketchup.

Systems programmers keep it up longer.
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list