Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1998 11:02:43 +1000 From: "Andrew Reilly" <reilly@zeta.org.au> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu Cc: dg@root.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: memory leaks in libc Message-ID: <19980807110243.A9734@reilly.home> In-Reply-To: <199808061723.DAA02057@godzilla.zeta.org.au>; from Bruce Evans on Fri, Aug 07, 1998 at 03:23:29AM %2B1000 References: <199808061723.DAA02057@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Aug 07, 1998 at 03:23:29AM +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
> >So you both agree, then, that there is no point in wasting any more
> >time on this?
>
> Not quite. It should be fixed someday.
I always thought it odd that there were no implimentations of
free() that were able to identify whether the pointer that they
were passed was something that malloc had handed out previously.
Surely malloc's data structures must have something to say about
it.
If free() could know this, then things like setenv could just go
ahead and call free(), and if the previous object had not been
malloc'ed then nothing would happen.
What _does_ happen now if you do free("foo") ?
Answering my own question with a small experiment: the free
routine prints this message to stderr:
foo in free(): warning: junk pointer, too low to make sense.
Is there any way to turn the message off, and rely on the benign
behaviour?
--
Andrew
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19980807110243.A9734>