Message-ID: <4AF2A33F.30601@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:04:47 -0600
From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz@users.sourceforge.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20090915 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: malloc overrides
References: <4AF29EC2.2050808@users.sourceforge.net> <20091105095629.GK26344@calimero.vinschen.de>
In-Reply-To: <20091105095629.GK26344@calimero.vinschen.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

On 05/11/2009 03:56, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> You can replace malloc with your own implementation, but it has to be a
> *working* implementation.  Early in the per-process DLL initialization
> there's a call to free(malloc(16)), which is used to figure out if
> Cygwin's malloc has been overridden with an application-supplied version
> of malloc.  Since your malloc calls exit, this goes down the gutter.  At
> this early stage in initialization, Cygwin can't handle the exit call
> correctly.
>
> Unless we can implement a way to figure out if the application provides
> malloc without actually calling malloc, the above testcases are bound to
> fail.

Thanks for the explanation.  So what are the correct answers to the 
questions the code is trying to answer?


Yaakov

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple