From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-58829-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org> Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B409D198005 for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0138EE0720; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ia0-f179.google.com (mail-ia0-f179.google.com [209.85.210.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 19A03E06C0 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 16:44:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ia0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x24so3607187iak.24 for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=be/sySwikWTpkUFyEKRj7DIH401qzY1a8lo7RW2mE3M=; b=MvfMmB0DLlNJWFRRF2TMqPyEQu+byZs01HKHuXigrM7nmz33vhxupWzZAhNcSMiSX8 eLta5zW/TD8WbHxaI5F11uok/XcuvbJlCG1fObomt3UtoU9l/62nBbI7n3VKE8YG5ev5 XPYPRHbfSZN8SJktwviM2qCGqc40BN1B+0J/8VbGQ+iqRhM08Qy/xqd5FzEUKrXPCUhk Jmy8fLP6KtwYWCan4Qj9e0KjkQX/EQiaCpd5QaWbgFzAA2cVwpmJFMfBRccllgX/wfN3 WpvUwp5F91Q9AijZw4mSTZaYKgo5ayMA9H1W2kkS51YGBTIYVgaCwnsUX36EedAwG0bh 0LrQ== Precedence: bulk List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org> List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org> List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org> X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.219.228 with SMTP id pr4mr5552006igc.40.1361897071371; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.64.21.98 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:44:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com> References: <512CB9B8.9060308@gentoo.org> <CAAr7Pr_ortMPegDfPWcLw8ZLZoDV-HJBB4-Z3e93y=1G0A6O-Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:44:31 -0500 X-Google-Sender-Auth: xdVyi42YW2KNqg0YOT7MVSQvgnY Message-ID: <CAGfcS_=uPcTVWuk2n8WFiHk1d0q3Bm+cf6f5tO3FNmwQy2MK6g@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Evaluating a new malloc() From: Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> To: gentoo-dev <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: ddf35ba1-f327-4f94-b3ba-f825cba3b50a X-Archives-Hash: 637db12d0037eea5c289941859faf5cd On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org> wrote: > I see a *HUGE* reason. glibc ships with ptmalloc. If you think they > should use jemalloc, talk to them. Don't just do it in Gentoo. Certainly I think it would be far more productive to talk to the glibc maintainers first. However, nothing prevents anybody from creating a Gentoo package with an alternative glibc implementation, patchset, whatever, assuming they are willing to maintain it. It really is no different from having an alternative udev implementation. Gentoo is about choice. Now, whether it ever becomes the /default/ choice is another matter entirely. Nobody can prevent people from experimenting - Gentoo developers are permitted to waste their time if desired. :) Rich