[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [patches] malloc & madvise
- To: <patches@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [patches] malloc & madvise
- From: Richard Kralovic <Richard.Kralovic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:10:56 +0100
Joseph S. Myers wrote:
This patch is large enough we can't look at it in detail without a
copyright assignment on file at the FSF (such an assignment needs to name
GLIBC; they may want it to name EGLIBC as well).
Thank you for a fast answer. I have not made any assignment to FSF yet,
but I am willing to do one. What steps are necessary to do it?
groups. Allowing this to be configured when building EGLIBC, or just
changing the default unconditionally, is not of course a problem since it
doesn't affect the interface to EGLIBC; the problem would only be with
In my opinion, it is reasonable to make this behavior the default one.
Nevertheless, it might have a negative impact in certain situations.
(Although my personal guess is that desktops and embedded systems are
most likely to benefit from the change.)
Another way would be to not change the mallopt() at all, but keep the
runtime tunability via environment variable. In this way, the binary
compatibility would not be affected at all.
If any of these solutions were adopted in eglibc, it would allow an
ordinary user to easily tune the system. Is any of them acceptable to be
included in eglibc?