X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4AF2A33F.30601@users.sourceforge.net> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:04:47 -0600 From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" 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 AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: malloc overrides References: <4AF29EC2 DOT 2050808 AT users DOT sourceforge DOT net> <20091105095629 DOT GK26344 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT 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