Mail Archives: pgcc/1999/08/22/08:08:50
"Dr H. T. Leung" wrote:
> Yes, if you had followed the url for the Curl mailing list, you would have
> read that the initial quick-and-dirty fix for getting a non-seg-faulting
> binary with egcs (1.1.x, x=1 or 2, can't remember) was to comment out a
> "free *" somewhere. But then the gcc 2.7.x-compiled binary doesn't mind
> one or the other, and that indicates that egcs 1.1.x deals with (memory
> assignment of) string functions slightly differently than gcc 2.7.x.
yes, i know.
i haven't related my entire experiences. mucking around with malloc() and
family, using different compilers, i have found strange results that seems to
defy the 'laws'.
getting segfaults in functions completely unrelated to memory allocations of my
own and more.
even using the malloc debugging environment functions didn't yield reproducible
or correct results.
one compiler could make working code, another would break. switch code around
without changing functionality and get different results. the first compiler
might break and the second work.
i learned that efence doesn't always work, malloc environment debugging doesn't
always work, compiler rules may not be so absolute :)
-d
--
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows NT reboot!
Do you remember how to -think- ? Do you remember how to experiment? Linux
__ is an operating system that brings back the fun and adventure in computing.
\/ for linux-kernel: please read linux/Documentation/* before posting problems
- Raw text -