* Stefan Seefeld ([email protected]) wrote: > On 08/06/2013 09:42 PM, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote: > > * Stefan Seefeld ([email protected]) wrote: > >> Yes, with the adjusted free() implementation as per this patch, I think > >> this is a robust solution. Do you think we need any form of multi-thread > >> protection ? Or can we assume that library initialization will have > >> completed by the time multiple threads could possibly call calloc() ? > > Well, considering that lttng-ust spawns thread in its constructor, it > > might indeed be a good thing to be thread-safe. Fixed by: > > > > commit d9e6d9a57fda6d3ad73016b2b3137997aac9c7ba > > Author: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> > > Date: Tue Aug 6 21:41:15 2013 -0400 > > > > Fix: static_calloc should be thread-safe > > > > Reported-by: Stefan Seefeld <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Mathieu Desnoyers <[email protected]> > > > > Thoughts ? > > Sorry, I'm confused. Where can I find this commit, i.e. what repo, what > branch ? I can't see it anywhere ?
See https://github.com/efficios/memleak-finder/commits/master Thanks, Mathieu > > Thanks, > Stefan > > -- > > ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin... > > > _______________________________________________ > lttng-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
