On 12/28/17, Warren Young <[email protected]> wrote: > > drh, I seem to recall messages about non-free()’d buffers in the Fossil > server code, where the patch was rejected with the argument that the forked > child is about to die anyway, so why bother freeing the buffer. That > doesn’t really apply in a single-process server, as I expect applies on the > Windows side. Will Fossil server leak memory on Windows?
Even the Windows server starts a new process to handle each request. It just does so using system() rather than fork(). We have to be careful about leaks in the parent process that is sitting there listening for requests and spawning children to handle each request. But there is no need to be concerned with memory leaks in the children, because they are all short-lived. -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
