From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 22 14:05:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id OAA19821 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:05:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usr06.primenet.com (tlambert@usr06.primenet.com [206.165.6.206]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA19804 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:05:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from tlambert@localhost) by usr06.primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id OAA24114; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 14:05:00 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199709222105.OAA24114@usr06.primenet.com> Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free (was: Memory leak in getservbyXXX?) To: eivind@bitbox.follo.net (Eivind Eklund) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 21:05:00 +0000 (GMT) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com, hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <19970922220757.30317@bitbox.follo.net> from "Eivind Eklund" at Sep 22, 97 10:07:57 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > As for the advanced diagonstics you want - sure, they look nice. > However, I've implemented this kind of diagnostics before, and as long > as I've exposed the invariant routine so it can be run at any point in > the program, I've never needed or had benefit from them. I've found > sprinkling the program with invariant checks at strategic points to be > much more effective at exposing problems. I'd rather it was a debugging option in the malloc library. I would prefer to not have to alter my code to get the checks. It's probably just a stylistic disagreement at this point. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.