| 1 |
On 02/26/2013 08:35 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 26/02/2013 14:33, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Results such as these led Blender and others (e.g. Chrome/Chromium, |
| 4 |
>> Firefox, Thunderbird) to bundle private versions of jemalloc. This |
| 5 |
>> bundling situation violates our policy against bundled libraries. The |
| 6 |
>> maintainers could just patch their software to link to libjemalloc. |
| 7 |
>> However, it might make more sense to evaluate jemalloc as a |
| 8 |
>> distribution-wide replacement for glibc's ptmalloc. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Short answer: no. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Would you elaborate on this? From a brief chat in IRC, you mentioned |
| 14 |
Valgrind, but it looks like that issue has been solved: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
http://blog.mozilla.org/jseward/2012/06/05/valgrind-now-supports-jemalloc-builds-directly/ |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
jemalloc probably should be merged at glibc upstream, but I have zero |
| 19 |
contact with glibc development, my Google searches have been fruitless |
| 20 |
and I want to know what other people think about this. I think it would |
| 21 |
be wrong to try to go to upstream with the idea if people downstream |
| 22 |
don't like the idea. Not to mention, glibc is not the only libc in |
| 23 |
Gentoo and this applies to each of them. |
Archives