diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt | 8 |
1 files changed, 8 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt b/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt index 89edd6e4f..7760d2321 100644 --- a/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt +++ b/docs/Glibc_vs_uClibc_Differences.txt @@ -24,6 +24,14 @@ as implementation-defined by SuSv3, so both libraries are equally correct. This difference also applies to realloc(NULL, 0). I personally feel glibc's behavior is not particularly safe. +4.1) glibc's malloc() implementation has behavior that is tunable via the +MALLOC_CHECK_ environment variable. This is primarily used to provide extra +malloc debugging features. These extended malloc debugging features are not +available within uClibc. There are many good malloc debugging libraries +available for Linux (dmalloc, electric fence, valgrind, etc) that work much +better than the glibc extended malloc debugging. So our omitting this +functionality from uClibc is not a great loss. + 5) uClibc does not provide a database library (libdb). 6) uClibc does not support NSS (/lib/libnss_*), which allows glibc to easily |