public inbox for glibc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org> To: glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com Subject: [Bug libc/214] sbrk() doesn't detect brk() failures. Malloc doesn't handle sbrk() failures Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 19:59:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20060314195927.23299.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20040610193839.214.dlstevens@us.ibm.com> ------- Additional Comments From dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-14 19:59 ------- "The user" would be me, and I didn't get incorrect results from a man page. The problem, as I said in the first two entries, was that I was never able to get a NULL return from malloc(). I always either got "success" (in some cases without actually getting memory) or a segmentation violation. If I recall, a malloc() that exceeded the soft limit returned the same pointer as an already-allocated and not freed prior malloc(), which would be wrong. It certainly is possible that I had a misconfiguration on my system, and I lost the context beyond what I wrote here more than a year ago. So, closing the bug is not unreasonable, but I'd be happier if you had a test that manipulates the soft limits (correctly, if what I did was wrong) and results in a successful allocation or NULL return from malloc(), always. No segmentation faults, no garbage returns, etc. In other words, if you can demonstrate a case where setting a soft limit results in malloc() returning NULL (ever), then I think your test will be farther than I ever got, and I'd be happy with having the bug closed. :-) I don't care what the man page says. :-) -- http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=214 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-14 19:59 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2004-06-10 19:38 [Bug libc/214] New: " dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2004-06-18 17:35 ` [Bug libc/214] " dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2004-09-26 21:29 ` drepper at redhat dot com 2006-03-03 22:01 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-06 21:37 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-08 19:21 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-10 20:33 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-10 22:18 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-13 16:24 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-14 18:34 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-14 19:59 ` dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com [this message] 2006-03-15 20:18 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-15 21:21 ` dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-16 0:29 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-20 19:59 ` rsa at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-20 20:27 ` dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2006-03-21 23:56 ` dlstevens at us dot ibm dot com 2006-04-01 20:21 ` drepper at redhat dot com
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20060314195927.23299.qmail@sourceware.org \ --to=sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org \ --cc=glibc-bugs@sources.redhat.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).