Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1998 18:23:27 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs <archie@whistle.com> To: bde@zeta.org.au (Bruce Evans) Cc: bde@zeta.org.au, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu, dg@root.com, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: memory leaks in libc Message-ID: <199808070123.SAA26723@bubba.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <199808061723.DAA02057@godzilla.zeta.org.au> from Bruce Evans at "Aug 7, 98 03:23:29 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Bruce Evans writes: > >So you both agree, then, that there is no point in wasting any more > >time on this? > > Not quite. It should be fixed someday. As the person who originally brought up this bug about 6 months ago, I agree with Bruce.. it should be fixed. I'm a little puzzeled as to why Garrett keeps wanting to sweep it under the rug. The idea of keeping a hash table of pointers that were gotten via malloc() is simple enough. It would solve the problem for programs than need it (a real world example of which exists at Whistle). For programs that don't do a lot of putenv()/setenv(), which is most programs, there would be no difference. In fact, we can optimize for this common case, which is NO calls to putenv()/setenv(), by not creating the hash table at all. Now all we need is some enterprising soul to come up with the patch... -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com 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?199808070123.SAA26723>