On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ryan Bloom wrote: > I couldn't decide if it was bad mojo or not, which is why I didn't > just commit it. The structures will still be valid BTW, the only real > difference is that we run cleanups before we destroy memory.
Not exactly. Before, the subpools were being destroyed before the current pool's cleanups would be run. So if you allocate some thing (foo) out of the subpool that depends upon a thing (bar) that is allocated out of the parent pool, when you run the cleanup on foo it probably needs bar to still exist for the cleanup to work. With the way it was before, that guarantee would be met, since we recurse before we cleanup ourselves. But with this patch, we clean up ourselves before we recurse, so bar would be cleaned up before foo, and foo's cleanup could quite likely barf. > The other solution may be to remove the sub-pool from the > core_output_filter. I need to understand why we have it first though. I'll have to look more at that, too... it does seem like a possible alternative. --Cliff -------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charlottesville, VA
