This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
- From: Florian Weimer <fw at deneb dot enyo dot de>
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom at linux dot vnet dot ibm dot com>, libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2016 15:50:52 +0200
- Subject: Re: Should malloc-related functions be weak?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <87eg6cuwp7.fsf@totoro.br.ibm.com> <xnbn1ed1p8.fsf@greed.delorie.com>
* DJ Delorie:
> "Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho" <tuliom@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Shouldn't they be weak functions?
>
> I can imagine the mess that would happen if someone overwrode malloc()
> but not free()...
The problem is with the other symbols Tulio identified. I'll try to
see if providing weak stubs for them addresses the issue.