![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/eb3fe37da4a199eb4e3b479d8a57f808.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
27 Aug
2004
27 Aug
'04
6:37 p.m.
Talking to Simarilius, it looks like the version of libgc we've been using on Win32 has been built to replace the standard malloc.
This should in principle be harmless (except that the collector will be scanning a lot of memory it does not need to, and might mistake e.g. bitmap data for pointers), but
Could someone try a version of libgc that has been built without the malloc-replacement option and report back?
A different problem may be that Win9x and WinNT/2k/XP could require different builds of libgc.
-mental