We are using uClibc over uClinux which extends the heap using MMAP
instead of SBRK. We found the following issues with uClibc version
0.9.30.1.
1. We found with some special application, the application would get
stuck at line 162 of malloc.c and the reason was mem->next points back
to itself.
On Monday 23 November 2009 14:55:26 Freeman Wang wrote:
> 1. We found with some special application, the application would get
> stuck at line 162 of malloc.c and the reason was mem->next points back
> to itself.
please try to reduce the allocation patterns of your 'special' application.
it shou
ugh the mmb list, we will be able to make sure the
new_mmb structure is added properly.
Freeman
-Original Message-
From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vap...@gentoo.org]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:42 PM
To: uclibc@uclibc.org
Cc: Freeman Wang
Subject: Re: bugs in malloc
On Monday 23 No
he allocation
> before going through the mmb list, we will be able to make sure the
> new_mmb structure is added properly.
>
> Freeman
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Frysinger [mailto:vap...@gentoo.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:42 PM
> To: uclibc
Freeman Wang , Mike Frysinger ,
> uclibc@uclibc.org
> Betreff: Re: bugs in malloc
> If it helps, I am also experiences crashes in malloc. They did not occur
> in
> 0.9.28. Here is a sample backtrace:
>
> Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault.
> [New process 178
t;> An: Freeman Wang , Mike Frysinger ,
>> uclibc@uclibc.org
>> Betreff: Re: bugs in malloc
>
>> If it helps, I am also experiences crashes in malloc. They did not occur
>> in
>> 0.9.28. Here is a sample backtrace:
>>
>> Program terminated wit
On Tuesday 24 November 2009 06:14:36 Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D. wrote:
> If it helps, I am also experiences crashes in malloc. They did not occur in
> 0.9.28. Here is a sample backtrace:
Is there any way we can reproduce this? (How did you ./configure and build
vlc, and what test data are you run
Rob,
On 12/8/09 10:59 PM, "Rob Landley" wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 November 2009 06:14:36 Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D. wrote:
>> If it helps, I am also experiences crashes in malloc. They did not occur in
>> 0.9.28. Here is a sample backtrace:
>
> Is there any way we can reproduce this? (How did you
On Wednesday 09 December 2009 06:42:08 Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D. wrote:
> Rob,
>
> On 12/8/09 10:59 PM, "Rob Landley" wrote:
> > On Tuesday 24 November 2009 06:14:36 Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D. wrote:
> >> If it helps, I am also experiences crashes in malloc. They did not occur
> >> in 0.9.28. Here
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> worked, and is not an option if _I_ don't want to have to switch to eglibc.
> (Which is lgplv3. Ew.)
It appears you haven't actually looked at the EGLIBC sources. It's
LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3 you
can), l
On Thursday 10 December 2009 07:12:05 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > worked, and is not an option if _I_ don't want to have to switch to
> > eglibc. (Which is lgplv3. Ew.)
>
> It appears you haven't actually looked at the EGLIBC sources.
Not since a couple of
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > It's
> > LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3 you
> > can), like FSF GLIBC. What happens if FSF GLIBC changes license is up to
> > the EGLIBC Consortium.
>
> EGLIBC FAQ #1: eglibc is not meant to be a fork.
If FSF GLI
On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:43:51 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > It's
> > > LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3
> > > you can), like FSF GLIBC. What happens if FSF GLIBC changes license is
> > > up to the EGLIBC Consort
On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:43:51 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > It's
> > > > LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces under LGPLv3
> > > > you can), like FSF GLIBC. What happens if FSF GLIB
On Thursday 10 December 2009 18:01:04 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > On Thursday 10 December 2009 17:43:51 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Dec 2009, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > > > It's
> > > > > LGPLv2.1 (or greater, so if you want to distribute pieces un
. [mailto:ser...@ammirata.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 4:42 AM
To: Rob Landley; uclibc@uclibc.org
Cc: Freeman Wang
Subject: Re: bugs in malloc
Rob,
On 12/8/09 10:59 PM, "Rob Landley" wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 November 2009 06:14:36 Sergio M. Ammirata, Ph.D. wrote:
>> If
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 06:40:41PM -0600, Rob Landley wrote:
> On Thursday 10 December 2009 18:01:04 Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> > snapshots from release branches have worked fine for Debian and
> > Ubuntu, for example.
> I.E. Organizations with their own full-time developer team, testing
> infrast
Why not leverage the work done by these large organizations?. Ubuntu 9.10 is
using the eglibc 2.8 branch. Why don't you grab their patched version
(assuming they added patches), label it as an official eglibc 2.8 release
and put it as a download link on the site.
Personally, the Ubuntu 9.10 news i
ial eglibc 2.8 release
> and put it as a download link on the site.
>
> Personally, the Ubuntu 9.10 news is what convinced me to give eglibc a try
> ...
>
> Sergio
>
is the "bugs in malloc" subject still appropriate to this email threads ?
it seems you are sta
On 12/10/2009 05:08 PM, Freeman Wang wrote:
It should be worth to try the patch, at least the thread safe part which
Mike agreed upon.
Our VLC port which runs 12 threads used to only last about for 15-20
minutes before the patch and now is able to play for days.
I went ahead and applied your p
20 matches
Mail list logo
