I don't want to enter a debate over this, since clearly not everyone has the same concerns/priorities. However, I regard string handling memory leakage to be more serious than lack of range checking - but that's just my opinion, FWIW. (Which is not to say that range checking isn't also important, of course.)
Joe.
-----Original Message----- From: Maurice Lombardi [SMTP:Maurice.Lombardi@ujf-grenoble.fr] Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2002 6:48 PM To: gpc@gnu.de Subject: Re: list trouble solved
Toby Ewing wrote:
Finally got it.
In the end the problem wasn't in the list work at all. Way earlier in
the
program, I'd allocated memory for an array [1..x], then accessed it as
[0..x].
On freeing the memory, I guess something funny was set up in the memory
manager that came back to bite me way later.
So... is there a compiler option I could have set that would have told
me about
this illegal memory access?
_No array index checking_ in gpc up to now unfortunately
Franck,
You have said some time ago that check of array addresses was not so important ...
You said also in an other mail that you were not fond of numeric analysis ...
The two are closely related because this kind of lost of days of time is by far the most important for anybody who does numeric analysis programs...
Correcting this is in my opinion the most urgent thing to do after the 2.1 release.
Maurice
-- Maurice Lombardi Laboratoire de Spectrometrie Physique, Universite Joseph Fourier de Grenoble, BP87 38402 Saint Martin d'Heres Cedex FRANCE Tel: 33 (0)4 76 51 47 51 Fax: 33 (0)4 76 63 54 95 mailto:Maurice.Lombardi@ujf-grenoble.fr
da Silva, Joe wrote:
I don't want to enter a debate over this, since clearly not everyone has the same concerns/priorities. However, I regard string handling memory leakage to be more serious than lack of range checking - but that's just my opinion, FWIW. (Which is not to say that range checking isn't also important, of course.)
Side note, it's no actual memory leak, it's just temporary space (on the stack) not released early enough (i.e., not until the end of the containing routine).
Incidentally, I also consider this rather important, but I'm not sure yet how difficult it will be to solve it.
Frank
"da Silva, Joe" wrote:
I don't want to enter a debate over this, since clearly not everyone has the same concerns/priorities. However, I regard string handling memory leakage to be more serious than lack of range checking - but that's just my opinion, FWIW. (Which is not to say that range checking isn't also important, of course.)
Are there such leaks, and how do they get triggered (if you know).
-
CBFalconer -
da Silva, Joe -
Frank Heckenbach