This is the mail archive of the 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: extend dl-minimal malloc implementation

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:43 AM, Carlos O'Donell <> wrote:
> On 08/17/2017 09:34 AM, H.J. Lu wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 6:10 AM, Zack Weinberg <> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 2:41 AM, Andreas Schwab <> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 16 2017, Zack Weinberg <> wrote:
>>>>> What I was trying to suggest, earlier, was that *before* either (a) or
>>>>> (b) we should go through the entire of and try to *remove* as
>>>>> many allocations as possible, at which point it might make sense not
>>>>> to have malloc in there at all - "just" send all remaining allocations
>>>>> directly to mmap (not sbrk; leave sbrk for the "real" malloc).  That
>>>>> may take rearchitecting - but so may just converting alloca to malloc,
>>>>> as you point out. I admit I have no idea whether this is even
>>>>> feasible.
>>>> You still need something on top of mmap, unless you want to waste a lot
>>>> of memory.
>>> _Do_ we, though?  Why does need to make any allocations at all
>>> above and beyond mapping in the libraries?  It's an open question as
>>> far as I'm concerned.
>> Do we know how many calls to free within before the regular free
>> takes over?
> Yes, DJ had data on this because he tracked it with the new dl-minimal.c
> changes he was working on...
> DJ?

Should we open a bug report for memory leak in because of


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