memory leak in cygheap
Thu Sep 27 11:17:00 GMT 2001
Thursday, 27 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor email@example.com wrote:
>>do we need this "no free names" logic at all? the only suspicious
>>place is fhandler_disk_file::open () where we were storing pointer to
>>real_path's win32_path, so if it was changing later we were staying in
>>sync with those changes. but i can't see why it may change after open
>>is called, so making duplicate looks safe for me. Comments?
CF> We've recently changed build_fhandler so that it probably isn't necessary
CF> to use the no_free_names anymore.
CF> I don't have a lot of time to investigate right now, but it's possible that
CF> we can now get rid of this entirely.
CF> So, I think your patch is probably overkill.
? why overkill? i've just moved two identical pieces of code into
separate routine and removed no_free_names checks. I was thinking it's
rather "underkill" because no_free_names bit in flags are left intact.
Egor. mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19
More information about the Cygwin-patches