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

Tobias Roppelt Tobias.Roppelt at t-online.de
Tue May 13 11:53:32 PDT 2003


Greg Schafer schreibt:
> The bash docs are confusing. 
... 
> > --with-gnu-malloc is the same as --with-bash-malloc (configure told me so!).
> > That "linux (optional ... " line seems nice and cryptic to me, no?
...
> > So ... we're using Doug Lea's malloc, it *looks* like bash documentation is
> > telling us "don't configure --without-bash-malloc". (I wonder why. Greg?)
...
> Wonder what? I don't follow you. The bash docs are telling us to use the
> malloc that comes with bash. A simple ./configure will give us exactly that.
...
> IMHO, this is really a case where we should assume the bash
> maintainer knows what is best and defer to his better judgement.

Maybe I can shed a light on that: about a year ago I brought up this very same
question on LFS-dev and I talked to Chet Ramey.

This is what I got for an answer ...

-> Chat Remey:
/me> I was wondering about why there is a line in the NOTES file that says ...

-> You know, I can't remember.  I configure with the bash malloc on all my
-> linux machines, personally.

/me> Holds this true for linux/w glibc-2.2.5 on x86 and why?

-> I don't think so.  I'm taking that line out of the NOTES file.

/me> Is it safe to use gnu-malloc?

-> Yes, I think so.

Chet Ramey, CWRU    chet at po.CWRU.Edu    http://cnswww.cns.cwru.edu/~chet/

--Tobias
-- 
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