[Tcsh] tcsh and Alpine Linux: progress, anyone?
Luke Mewburn
luke at mewburn.net
Wed Nov 30 07:31:52 UTC 2022
Hi folks,
I've enhanced configure to search for a working sbrk(N) (HAVE_WORKING_SBRK)
based on Vlad's analysis, and changed config_f.h to force SYSMALLOC
unless HAVE_WORKING_SBRK.
The pull request is: https://github.com/tcsh-org/tcsh/pull/61
I also did some configure style cleanups first.
Note that I have NOT committed the output of autoreconf, because
I have different/older autoconf / gettext versions that the last
system that regenerated, and I wanted to avoid the diff skew.
cheers,
Luke.
On 22-11-28 14:15, Vlad Meşco wrote:
| On Mon, 28 Nov 2022 at 12:47, Vlad Meșco <vlad.mesco at gmail.com> wrote:
| >
| > Le 28 novembre 2022 11:33:15 GMT+02:00, Luke Mewburn <luke at mewburn.net> a écrit :
| > >On 22-11-26 23:41, Vlad Meșco wrote:
| > > | Le 26 novembre 2022 21:21:01 GMT+02:00, Christos Zoulas <christos at zoulas.com> a écrit :
| > > | >Alpine uses must c which is "opinionated" about things like
| > > | >defining a CPP symbol to differentiate itself because it claims one
| > > | >should not be needed because it provides a standards compliant
| > > | >implementation and such checks should be unnecessary:
| > > | >https://wiki.musl-libc.org/faq.html
| > > | >At the same time it uses a malloc implementation that causes
| > > | >problems for programs which try to use a custom allocator (replace musl's
| > > | >allocator):
| > > | >https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/testing-alternative-c-memory-allocators-pt-2-musl-mystery-gomes/
| > > | >https://gitlab.alpinelinux.org/alpine/aports/-/issues/12913
| > > | >
| > > |
| > > | My $0.02: Having to occasionally support cross platform builds
| > > | across a whole bunch of platforms at work, I wouldn't rely on GLIBC
| > > | not being defined meaning it's musl's/Alpine's behaviour in 2022.
| > > | There's bionic, uclib, and probably someone out there is working on
| > > | a 15th standard C library, and there will be a distro using it. And
| > > | somewhere there will be an issue. It would be a neverending problem.
| > > |
| > > | [...]
| > > |
| > > | You mention musl has issues with someone trying to replace the
| > > | allocator, surely that can be tested for? Now this is me being
| > > | ignorant to how autoconf works: is one able to add a custom check,
| > > | if such a check can be written? Then this could add a define to the
| > > | pile to force SYSMALLOC on in config_f.h (wishful thinking). I mean,
| > > | this is less of a preference and more of a necessity.
| > >
| > >Hi Vlad,
| > >
| > >If you can provide a minimal test program that we can run
| > >to determine if the problem exists on Alpine / musl /... ,
| > >versus not failing on more common platforms, I'm happy to work
| > >with you to turn that into an autoconf check (since I have a
| > >lot of experience with doing that).
| > >
| > >regards,
| > >Luke.
| >
| > Cool!
| >
| > I'll go find some time.
| >
| > Vlad
|
| Hello,
|
| It turns out musl just doesn't make the sbrk syscall if you give
| the library function anything other than 0 [1]. It's still true on their
| HEAD. I started off doing what tc.alloc.c/morecore() was doing:
|
| #include <unistd.h>
|
| int main(int argc, char* argv[])
| {
| void* p = sbrk(0);
| if(p == (void*)-1) return 1;
| if((long)p & 0x3ff) {
| p = sbrk((int) (1024 - ((long)p & 0x3ff)));
| if(p == (void*)-1) return 2;
| }
| p = sbrk(2048);
| if(p == (void*)-1) return 3;
| return 0;
| }
|
| But that can be reduced to "one" line:
|
| #include <unistd.h>
|
| int main(int argc, char* arvv[])
| {
| return sbrk(2048) == (void*)-1;
| }
|
| I've only tested on some older Alpine in WSL2 and a CentOS 7
| machine (for sanity). This checks if sbrk() can increase; if sbrk()
| is "read-only", then the custom allocator will not work, so tcsh
| may as well use the system/libc malloc.
|
| [1] http://git.musl-libc.org/cgit/musl/commit/src/linux/sbrk.c?id=7a995fe706e519a4f55399776ef0df9596101f93
|
| Best regards,
| Vlad
More information about the Tcsh
mailing list