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

Ian Molton spyro at f2s.com
Mon May 12 16:57:58 PDT 2003


On Mon, 12 May 2003 23:52:08 +0000 (UTC)
gschafer at zip.com.au (Greg Schafer) wrote:

> 
> Of course.
> 
> But I mean in the context of bash itself.
> 
> bash with bash malloc -> lots of testing
> bash without bash malloc -> less tested

Fair comment - but unless bash malloc does something different
*externally* to glibc malloc, the two should be interchangeable, and
there can be no doubt that glibc malloc is the more hammered by far.

so, unless bash relies on some idiosincracy of bash-malloc, and needs a
non-standard-compliant implementation, the most stable combination
should be with glibc malloc. (and if it does rely on such a thing, it
should be fixed, not malloc() )

(all MHO)

-- 
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