X-Recipient: archive-cygwin@delorie.com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:11:36 +0100 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: malloc overrides Message-ID: <20091105101136.GL26344@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <4AF29EC2.2050808@users.sourceforge.net> <20091105095629.GK26344@calimero.vinschen.de> <4AF2A33F.30601@users.sourceforge.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF2A33F.30601@users.sourceforge.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com On Nov 5 04:04, Yaakov S wrote: > 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? Yes and no, in this order :) Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat -- 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