dll - Windows malloc replacement (e.g., tcmalloc) and dynamic crt linking

Question

A C++ program that uses several DLLs and QT should be equipped with a malloc replacement (like tcmalloc) for performance problems that can be verified to be caused by Windows malloc. With linux, there is no problem, but with windows, there are several approaches, and I find none of them appealing:

1. Put new malloc in lib and make sure to link it first (Other SO-question)

This has the disadvantage, that for example strdup will still use the old malloc and a free may crash the program.

2. Remove malloc from the static libcrt library with lib.exe (Chrome)

This is tested/used(?) for chrome/chromium, but has the disadvantage that it just works with static linking the crt. Static linking has the problem if one system library is linked dynamically against msvcrt there may be mismatches in the heap allocation/deallocation. If I understand it correctly, tcmalloc could be linked dynamically such that there is a common heap for all self-compiled dlls (which is good).

3. Patch crt-source code (firefox)

Firefox's jemalloc apparently patches the windows CRT source code and builds a new crt. This has again the static/dynamic linking problem above.

One could think of using this to generate a dynamic MSVCRT, but I think this is not possible, because the license forbids providing a patched MSVCRT with the same name.

4. Dynamically patching loaded CRT at run time

Some commercial memory allocators can do such magic. tcmalloc can do, too, but this seems rather ugly. It had some issues, but they have been fixed. Currently, with tcmalloc it does not work under 64 bit windows.

Are there better approaches? Any comments?

Answer 1

Q: A C++ program that is split accross several dlls should:

A) replace malloc?

B) ensure that allocation and de-allocation happens in the same dll module?

A: The correct answer is B. A c++ application design that incorporates multiple DLLs SHOULD ensure that a mechanism exists to ensure that things that are allocated on the heap in one dll, are free'd by the same dll module.

---

Why would you split a c++ program into several dlls anyway? By c++ program I mean that the objects and types you are dealing with are c++ templates, STL objects, classes etc. You CAN'T pass c++ objects accross dll boundries without either lot of very careful design and lots of compiler specific magic, or suffering from massive duplication of object code in the various dlls, and as a result an application that is extremely version sensitive. Any small change to a class definition will force a rebuild of all exe's and dll's, removing at least one of the major benefits of a dll approach to app development.

Either stick to a straight C interface between app and dll's, suffer hell, or just compile the entire c++ app as one exe.