On 1/1/07, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:47:37PM +0000, seventh guardian wrote:
> On 12/30/06, Dominik Vogt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 03:01:22PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:57:20PM +0100, Dominik Vogt wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 02:13:29AM +0000, seventh guardian wrote:
> >> > [snip]
> >> > > Ok, here goes the patch module_interface.c. The first goal of having
> >a
> >> > > functional system is hopefully done.
> >> >
> >> > I'm going to create a branch in cvs where we can apply, test and
> >> > modify the patches. Don't bother to to the changes I posted
> >> > earlier; I'll do it myself.
> >> >
> >> > The branch name will be "fvwm-module-struct-branch". To pull it
> >> > from cvs into a directory "modstruct-branch", issue
> >> >
> >> > $ cvs co -Pd modstruct-branch -r fvwm-module-struct-branch fvwm
> >>
> >> I'm done proof-reading and cleaning up the code.
> >
> >See attachment for the complete module-struct patch.
>
> Hum it seems to be a problem with do_execute_module now. If for some
> reason executing the module doesn't go correctly, the function exits
> with a broken module still the list. I don't know if we should rely on
> it being removed at some other place.. Maybe we should do it at the
> spot.
I've already coded this a couple of days ago. Or do you see
another leak?
This message is old.. there isn't really a memory leak, but if the
module can't be executed for any reason there is a "pipe-less" module
record in the list, not connected to any module. I believe now it
eventually gets deleted in the first try to communicate, so there
should be no trouble..
It has nothing to do with moving the module allocation to the end of
the pipe creation though.. Is this why you ask?
