=?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size.
Oh really ...
> Doesn't this mean that there is some place where the return value of
> malloc is not checked for null ?
You can see for yourself that the value *is* checked in
Hi,
I know the answer :)
I tried to find the patch that caused the failure, and when doing so,
rechecking a build which had succeeded now failed. So this was an
environment problem.
The solution was to change the ulimit for data segment size. I hadn't
thought of that because I had origin
I wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=E9mi_Zara?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> (gdb) info locals
>> block = 0x4395000
>> chunk = 0x4395010
>> priorfree = 0x5395020
>> chunk_size = 16777216
>> blksize = 70864912
>> (gdb) p *block
>> $5 = {aset = 0x306d10, next = 0x0, freeptr = 0x5395020 > out of bounds>, en
