On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 21:14:14 +0200, Carlos O'Donell wrote: > Bug 1430223 - In some conditions, tcmalloc memalign will segfault > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1430223 It looks as a tcmalloc bug which could be fixed; it also has been probably fixed in the meantime as stated there. > I think a key point here is to reduce the number of allocators being > used by the distribution so we can keep the quality high and help > our users when they have problems. So why glibc greated an N+1 allocator (by DJ Delorie) instead of just importing/using tcmalloc (which is license-compatible with glibc)? On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 22:34:09 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237260 = gperftools: tcmalloc breaks ABI on x86_64 You (Florian Weimer) have not provided any countercase (*) why small allocations under alignment size (16 bytes) still should be aligned to 16 bytes. This is why tcmalloc upstream closed it: https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools/issues/724 (*) https://github.com/gperftools/gperftools/issues/724#issuecomment-147369562 I do not see how that can be useful in practice, do you? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1303323 = tcsh: interposed malloc is not ABI-compliant due to lack of alignment This was a bug in tcsh custom allocator. (That is unrelated to tcmalloc.) > http://www.erahm.org/2016/03/24/minimum-alignment-of-allocation-across-platforms/ Looking at its source it looks to me mozjemalloc still in use by Fedora Firefox still has only 8-byte alignment. Jan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/YNZXINTXTMQ4SGFU6LT5A4FDQ4ANXGLS/
