Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2013 11:58:04 -0600 From: Richard Pennington <rich@...nware.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com CC: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> Subject: Re: Removing sbrk and brk On 12/21/2013 08:15 PM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 22/12/13 00:40, Rich Felker wrote: >> Finally, another alternative might be leaving sbrk/brk alone and >> modifying malloc not to use the brk at all. This has been proposed >> several times (well, supporting non-brk allocation has been proposed >> anyway) to avoid spurious malloc failures when the brk cannot be >> extended, and if we support that we might as well just drop brk >> support in malloc (otherwise there's code with duplicate functionality >> and thus more bloat). So this might actually be the best long-term >> option. Switching malloc from using brk to PROT_NONE/mprotect (see the >> above idea for brk emulation) would also make the malloc >> implementation more portable to systems with no concept of brk. >> However this option would definitely be a post-1.0 development >> direction, and not something we could do right away (of course I'd >> probably hold off until after 1.0 for any of these changes since >> they're fairly invasive, except possibly the idea of making sbrk >> always-fail). > I'd add compile time and runtime warnings and plan for post-1.0 > > lu The latest OS X Mavericks has sbrk() marked as deprecated and clang issues a warning for using it. -Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.