Fix jemalloc support for musl #41168
Conversation
Just like DragonFlyBSD, using the same symbols as the system allocator will result in a segmentation fault at runtime due to allocator mismatches. As such, prefix the jemalloc symbols instead.
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nikomatsakis (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
@bors: r+ Thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 536011d has been approved by |
|
⌛ Testing commit 536011d with merge bc759cd... |
|
💔 Test failed - status-travis |
Fix jemalloc support for musl Just like DragonFlyBSD, using the same symbols as the system allocator will result in a segmentation fault at runtime due to allocator mismatches. As such, it's better to prefix the jemalloc symbols instead, avoiding crashes. We encountered this problem on a dynamically-linked musl target (with patches to Rust to make that possible, see #40113). It may not show up immediately obviously on the current statically-linked CRT targets.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Just like DragonFlyBSD, using the same symbols as the system allocator will result in a segmentation fault at runtime due to allocator mismatches. As such, it's better to prefix the jemalloc symbols instead, avoiding crashes.
We encountered this problem on a dynamically-linked musl target (with patches to Rust to make that possible, see #40113). It may not show up immediately obviously on the current statically-linked CRT targets.