> On 13 Apr 2017, at 17:12, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 05:02:54PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 13, 2017 at 12:37:19PM +0200, Thierry Fournier wrote: >>> Good catch. I read the code of the Lua function luaL_newstate, and I >>> approve your change because this function dos exactly the same job, but >>> with a libc memory allocator. Note that a few lines after after your patch >>> (about 15 lines), I call the function "lua_setallocf()" which set again >>> the memory allocator. I think that this line becomes useless and it will >>> be better to remove it. >> >> Yes it's after I noticed it that I started to understand the problem. But >> it's unsure to me whether we can get rid of it, as I understood that the >> first one stated what allocator to use during that call. You may be right, >> it probably doesn't make much sense. I can test however, it's easy. > > OK I could confirm that you're right so I removed this call and merged > the change now.
Ok, thanks for tests. > thanks! > Willy >
