memory leak in cygheap
Thu Sep 27 22:46:00 GMT 2001
On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 10:15:56PM +0400, egor duda wrote:
>Thursday, 27 September, 2001 Christopher Faylor firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
I didn't look closely at the patch but I thought that it was possible
that we don't need to unset it in two places.
More information about the Cygwin-patches