On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:05:09 -0400 Hal Rosenstock <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Hal Rosenstock > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:35 PM, Sean Hefty <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>It's not a matter of relying on exit for open fds but rather the > >>>allocated memory under the covers of mad_rpc_open_port so no longer > >>>can one rely on just exit and this needs to be made explicit. > >> > >> The OS should reclaim any allocated memory not freed by the app when it > >> exits. > >> Is this your concern? > > > > malloc'd memory ? > > Many OSs do but not all. Should we rely on this ? Also, don't other > userspace programs attempt to properly cleanup after themselves rather > than rely on OS cleanup behavior ? Strictly speaking I think Hal is right on this one. I should have made the change myself was lazy. Another more tangible reason for this is we may change the behavior of the macros in the future. IBERROR recently fooled Sasha into thinking execution continued. IBPANIC is perhaps a bit more clear that it will exit. Ira > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http:// lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general > > To unsubscribe, please visit http:// > openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general > -- Ira Weiny Math Programer/Computer Scientist Larence Livermore National Lab [email protected] _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
