From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 22 13:14:01 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C2D16A4CE; Sat, 22 May 2004 13:14:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from regina.plastikos.com (216-107-106-250.wan.networktel.net [216.107.106.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9416143D1D; Sat, 22 May 2004 13:14:00 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fullermd@over-yonder.net) Received: from mortis.over-yonder.net (adsl-19-159-58.jan.bellsouth.net [68.19.159.58]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by regina.plastikos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D87E96EEB9; Sat, 22 May 2004 16:13:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mortis.over-yonder.net (Postfix, from userid 100) id BA2DA20F2F; Sat, 22 May 2004 15:13:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 15:13:30 -0500 From: "Matthew D. Fuller" To: Tim Kientzle Message-ID: <20040522201330.GU37882@over-yonder.net> References: <000701c4402b$a54e73d0$4206000a@stalker> <40AFA163.4020109@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <40AFA163.4020109@freebsd.org> X-Editor: vi X-OS: FreeBSD User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i-fullermd.2 cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Memory Leak X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 20:14:01 -0000 On Sat, May 22, 2004 at 11:52:19AM -0700 I heard the voice of Tim Kientzle, and lo! it spake thus: > > The one problem I've had is that dmalloc.h redefines some standard > functions, which can cause gcc to complain. I usually just have a flag in my Makefile to enable dmalloc (adding a -D to the cc line to enable including the header file which is inside #ifdef's, adding the linking of the library, etc), which turns off all -W flags. gcc's quiet about it then. Personally, I find its insistence that free(NULL); is an error to be far more irritating. There's a config flag for it somewhere in the compile process, though. -- Matthew Fuller (MF4839) | fullermd@over-yonder.net Systems/Network Administrator | http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/ "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is because I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet"