On 6/17/10 5:12 PM, Myles Watson wrote: >>> It looks like Patrick found this before: >>> http://www.coreboot.org/pipermail/coreboot/2009-November/054387.html >>> >>> If I take out the free it works fine. It seems like there must be a better >>> fix. >>> >> Agreed. >> >> I took a look at this a little bit with Stefan and he helped me track where >> the double free is. >> >> The routine doing the freeing badly needs to be rewritten to use simpler >> logic >> as the recursive logic it is using now just doesn't work, and it winds >> up to be a bit of a crap shoot if your compile gets killed by this or not. >> > What if we just agree that host machines have a lot of RAM, romcc is > not a long-running program, and life will be easier if nothing gets > freed. > Then we should also switch to Visual C++ in order to stay compliant. ;-)
Stefan -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
