Your message dated Mon, 29 Apr 2024 04:29:01 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#453037: Memory leak after repeated inclusion of 
function
has caused the Debian Bug report #453037,
regarding Memory leak after repeated inclusion of function
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
453037: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=453037
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: bash
Version: 3.1dfsg-8

Tried in both stable and unstable.

Test program 1:

 while true; do
  . ./test2
 done


Test program 2  (test2 from above):

  function check_settings()
  {
    for ((interface=0; interface < 10; interface++)) ; do
      :
    done
  }



Now watch 'top' and memory get eaten.  It appears to require the
explicit use of the for syntax.  Note that the code in the function
isn't being run at all, just parsed.



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 5.2.21-2

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:48:46 -0800 "Peter Naulls" <[email protected]> wrote:
Package: bash
Version: 3.1dfsg-8

Tried in both stable and unstable.

Test program 1:

 while true; do
  . ./test2
 done


Test program 2  (test2 from above):

  function check_settings()
  {
    for ((interface=0; interface < 10; interface++)) ; do
      :
    done
  }



Now watch 'top' and memory get eaten.  It appears to require the
explicit use of the for syntax.  Note that the code in the function
isn't being run at all, just parsed.

This issues is no longer reproducible in bash 5.2.21-2.

The bash process spins and consumes 100% of a core (like it should in a `while true` loop), but the amount of allocated memory stays constant.

Regards,

--
Gioele Barabucci

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to