Open rparrett opened 2 years ago
Where in the docs did you come across this?
https://rustwasm.github.io/docs/book/reference/code-size.html#avoid-allocation-or-switch-to-wee_alloc
Describe what about it does not make sense
Switching to wee_alloc is not good advice.
wee_alloc
Why does it not make sense?
wee_alloc is unmaintained and has a serious memory leak bug.
See RUSTSEC-2022-0054 and https://github.com/rustwasm/wee_alloc/issues/106
How could we improve it?
Remove references to wee_alloc.
Perhaps replace them with references to lol_alloc which has been suggested as an alternative.
lol_alloc
But IMO this paragraph shouldn't speak about allocator-swapping as a mere tradeoff between speed and size.
I'll second this request. GitHub's dependabot flags it as a critical security issue:
https://github.com/ptdecker/the-rust-programming-language/security/dependabot/1
I'll third this request
Where in the docs did you come across this?
https://rustwasm.github.io/docs/book/reference/code-size.html#avoid-allocation-or-switch-to-wee_alloc
Describe what about it does not make sense
Switching to
wee_alloc
is not good advice.Why does it not make sense?
wee_alloc
is unmaintained and has a serious memory leak bug.See RUSTSEC-2022-0054 and https://github.com/rustwasm/wee_alloc/issues/106
How could we improve it?
Remove references to
wee_alloc
.Perhaps replace them with references to
lol_alloc
which has been suggested as an alternative.But IMO this paragraph shouldn't speak about allocator-swapping as a mere tradeoff between speed and size.