This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?


On 07/29/2016 03:11 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:
Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> writes:

On 07/29/2016 02:27 PM, Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho wrote:

According to the __malloc_hook man page [1]

    Programmers should instead preempt calls to the relevant functions by
    defining and exporting functions such as "malloc" and "free".

But malloc, free and realloc are all global functions, causing problems when
linking statically.

Shouldn't they be weak functions?

I don't think so.  With those non-weak definition, the static linker
enforces that you interpose *all* malloc-related APIs in use.

Including the new __malloc_fork_lock_parent, __malloc_fork_unlock_parent and
__malloc_fork_unlock_child?

Hmm, right.  Would you file a bug for this so that we do not forget it?

Florian


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]