On 12/18/2017 6:06 AM, Michael Stahl wrote: > On 18.12.2017 03:24, Michael McConville wrote: >> Hi guys. >> >> Hopefully this doesn't sound presumptuous coming from an outsider, but I >> think >> you could benefit from removing some or all of your wrappers for libc >> functions >> like malloc. Modern platforms offer many tools for tracing and debugging >> allocations, which seems to be the motivation for the wrappers. The semantics >> of these wrappers seem to be identical to the POSIX semantics, so replacement >> would be easy. > > well there are not only POSIX systems out there: on Windows, it's > possible to have multiple different malloc/free implementations and > therefore heaps in the same process, and care needs to be taken to > ensure that the objects allocated by a particular malloc() are passed to > the corresponding free() and not to a different one. > > one way to do that is to export free_* wrapper functions from your DLL > so the client never calls free directly; all the allocation and > deallocation calls of types provided in the library are done in the DLL > itself through wrapper functions, which are guaranteed to work on the > same heap.
This is true even on Linux if the client chooses to use a different runtime library, e.g. newlib, instead of the native OS runtime library. It's just worse on Windows as each VS compiler version distributes a different runtime library. -- Earnie _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ xml@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
