Skip to content

Conversation

@TheOneWithTheBraid
Copy link

In some cases, users of the plugin might prefer to use a dynamically linked version of mimalloc. This PR introduces a new CMake option allowing to dynamically link mimalloc. Unlike #883 , this PR does not change the default behavior but simply adds an additional CMake option.

The default behavior of the plugin is not changed.

If users set the CMake option :

set(MIMALLOC_USE_STATIC_LIBS OFF)

This plugin will now link against the system-provided mimalloc.

Users might prefer this in case they try to reduce installation size or aim to comply with distributor-specific dependency management requirements.

Unless this option is set to OFF, the behavior of the plugin won't change.

Thanks a lot for your amazing work 🎉 !

  • chore: refactor mimalloc import
  • fix: correct minimum required CMake version
  • chore: better format if statement

In some cases, users of the plugin might prefer to use a dynamically linked version of mimalloc. This PR introduces a new CMake option allowing to dynamically link mimalloc. Unlike [media-kit#883](media-kit#883) , this PR does **not** change the default behavior but simply adds an additional CMake option.

**The default behavior of the plugin is not changed.**

If users set the CMake option :

```cmake
set(MIMALLOC_USE_STATIC_LIBS OFF)
```

This plugin will now link against the system-provided mimalloc.

Users might prefer this in case they try to reduce installation size or aim to comply with distributor-specific dependency management requirements.

Unless this option is set to `OFF`, the behavior of the plugin won't change.

Thanks a lot for your amazing work 🎉 !

- chore: refactor mimalloc import
- fix: correct minimum required CMake version
- chore: better format if statement

Signed-off-by: The one with the braid <[email protected]>
@Predidit
Copy link
Owner

Predidit commented Apr 2, 2025

@TheOneWithTheBraid

I'm sorry I've only just seen this PR. Since this is a forked repository, I didn’t receive any email notifications about it. Could you please confirm whether you intended to submit the PR to this low-traffic branch instead of the main branch?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants