malloc
H . J . Lu
hjl@lucon.org
Mon Sep 10 08:59:00 GMT 2001
On Mon, Sep 10, 2001 at 12:16:36AM -0500, blackdragon@tyler.net wrote:
> now it appears that glibc is even slower than most, and alot more prone to
> error unless extreme care is taken.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
What did you mean by that? Did you mean other malloc implementations
could take more craps while the malloc in glibc would fail under the
same condition? If it is what you meant, I consider it is a very
good glibc feature.
H.J.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list