This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [patch] Correct range checking in mallopt/mxfast/tcache [BZ #25194]
- From: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- To: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder at gmail dot com>
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2019 23:49:51 -0500
- Subject: Re: [patch] Correct range checking in mallopt/mxfast/tcache [BZ #25194]
Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com> writes:
> change (though it also makes me wonder if the tunable interface
> could change to allow these to return void).
Amusingly, I'm pondering swbz 25035 where tunables fail completely due
to sbrk() failure, with absolutely no indication to the user :-(
Hiding failures from the user is bad.
> It also makes me wonder: should we propagate the return value from the
> other do_set_* calls in mallopt? Even if they always succeed, this
> seems less error-prone in case they're changed later to not always
> succeed.
Perhaps.