Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 18:10:29 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com>, Andrew Atrens <atrens@nortel.ca>, hackers@freebsd.org, gram@cdsec.com, freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free Message-ID: <199709190840.SAA02922@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:34:28 %2B0200." <12843.874658068@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <199709190652.QAA01100@word.smith.net.au>, Mike Smith writes: > >> > >> probably a printf or other stdio function > > > >I *know* this. 8) I'm just trying to find the sucker. The 'ddd' example > >looked like it was spinning in abort(), which doesn't look like it will > >actually come back and call malloc() again. In olden days, > >if MALLOC_STATS was defined when malloc() was built, the stats dump > >used fprintf(), but this is not the case with 3.x. > > Some time ago abort() was changed to that it would call __flush(), > because some standard said so. I still think this is unwise. This is only an issue if the user supplies a custom _write handler for a FILE. The standard handler doesn't appear to have any opportunity for dynamic allocation. mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709190840.SAA02922>