From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: When should ralloc.c be used? (WAS: bug#24358) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 20:09:32 +0300 Message-ID: <83r3753c8j.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87twe6sx2g.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <87eg51ng4r.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <87k2djwumn.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83h98nidvd.fsf@gnu.org> <87eg3rvtsf.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <83k2dihpm9.fsf@gnu.org> <8760p2wzgj.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <838ttyhhzu.fsf@gnu.org> <871szqwu51.fsf@users.sourceforge.net> <831szqhbc2.fsf@gnu.org> <87d1itt79z.fsf_-_@users.sourceforge.net> <7baa18d4-2b09-caa8-005e-29008a383ad1@cs.ucla.edu> <83mvhwrgd5.fsf@gnu.org> <8539f38f-9a11-44c3-4de7-bb974c96206c@cs.ucla.edu> <83d1iq5ib1.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1477331716 10476 195.159.176.226 (24 Oct 2016 17:55:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:55:16 +0000 (UTC) Cc: npostavs@users.sourceforge.net, eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Oct 24 19:55:12 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1byjSg-0000sV-GF for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 19:55:02 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:48603 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byjSi-0006CZ-On for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:55:04 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58985) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byilD-0001GQ-IT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:10:08 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byilA-0001TP-AN for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:10:07 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:52583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1byikz-0001MW-0h; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:09:53 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.246.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.246]:3292 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1byikq-0000vh-AE; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 13:09:46 -0400 In-reply-to: (message from Richard Stallman on Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:55:36 -0400) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:208733 Archived-At: > From: Richard Stallman > CC: eggert@cs.ucla.edu, emacs-devel@gnu.org, > npostavs@users.sourceforge.net > Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 12:55:36 -0400 > > > I think native malloc on GNU/Linux is much better these days; we were > > using it all the recent years, until glibc developers removed the > > hooks we needed for unexec support (which is why those GNU/Linux > > systems where this change is already installed switched to gmalloc and > > ralloc instead). > > Should we talk with them about putting in those hooks or other > suitable hooks? Then we could go back to the libc malloc. I think we tried, and more or less failed. (That was in the context of unexec, but the arguments are more or less similar.) > > It imposes hard-to-fulfill requirements on functions that get C > > pointers to buffer text or to Lisp string data: those functions must > > never call malloc, directly or indirectly. > > I think the way to fix those is by systematically looking at the > source for them, rather than by debugging. Yes, but finding out whether this is so is not easy, because the malloc call is sometimes buried very deep.