Sender: david AT killerlabs DOT com Message-ID: <37BF7F0A.F098DCF2@kalifornia.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 21:39:39 -0700 From: David Ford Organization: Talon Technology, Intl. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.3.15 i586) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Dr H. T. Leung" CC: pgcc AT delorie DOT com, Oliver Jennrich Subject: Re: Something hogs memory... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: pgcc AT delorie DOT com "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