On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Stefan Reinauer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. ;-) Point taken :)
Myles -- coreboot mailing list: [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
