Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 23:31:23 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: eliminated reliance on newlib malloc Message-ID: <20020818033123.GA19092@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20020816201318 DOT GA24942 AT redhat DOT com> <122196589420 DOT 20020817171040 AT gmx DOT net> <004f01c2460c$f0242e10$6132bc3e AT BABEL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <004f01c2460c$f0242e10$6132bc3e@BABEL> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i On Sat, Aug 17, 2002 at 05:41:28PM +0100, Conrad Scott wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: >>I'm building a snapshot now. I guess that will be the first step in >>seeing just what I've broken. > >If you're building on cygwin, I assume you'll have noticed that sort(1) >is now broken; it dies at malloc.cc:3644 in dlmalloc (bytes=768). >(Sort is used in, at least, speclib, so that's why I assume you would >notice this problem if you build cygwin.) > >On my machine this is an easy bug to reproduce: just running sort with >no arguments from the command line dies immediately. Otherwise >everything I'm using seems fine. This actually turns out to have been a (gulp) bug in Doug Lea's malloc. There was a new version available which fixed the problem. It was fixed *today*. Do we have a lurker in our midst or is this just synchronicity at work. In any event, it was nice to have someone else fix the problem for me. I'm generating a new snapshot now. cgf