#13731: Fix libsingular memory management
------------------------------------------------------------------+---------
       Reporter:  nbruin                                          |         
Owner:  rlm     
           Type:  defect                                          |        
Status:  new     
       Priority:  major                                           |     
Milestone:  sage-5.6
      Component:  memleak                                         |    
Resolution:          
       Keywords:                                                  |   Work 
issues:          
Report Upstream:  Reported upstream. Developers acknowledge bug.  |     
Reviewers:          
        Authors:                                                  |     Merged 
in:          
   Dependencies:                                                  |      
Stopgaps:          
------------------------------------------------------------------+---------

Comment (by SimonKing):

 Replying to [comment:68 nbruin]:
 > Just a quick comment: The normal way of using `malloc` is via `#include
 <stdlib.h>`. It's only because we need `malloc_usable_size` or
 `malloc_size` that we need `malloc.h`. You're already choosing between
 those using an `#if defined(...)`, so why not use the same mechanism for
 the compile?

 Well, I don't know whether that way of chosing works. It definitely does
 not for the `#include "malloc.h"` versus `#include "malloc/malloc.h"`
 thingy.

 > The likely programmatic injection point for changes seems to be the
 `makeheader` script which is invoked in the makefile rule for `malloc.h`,
 but I'm not sure that that has capabilities of building header files based
 on conditionals by default.

 I haven't looked into that.> Given that this code should only be relevant
 for *debug* builds of singular, I don't think it's worth overhauling the
 process by which omalloc produces its header field.

 Probably right. We should better focus on using the debug spkg to detect
 more memory corruptions.

 Just to be on the safe side: Does attachment:singular_15435.patch fix all
 upstream problems that we have detected so far?

  * The one from the ticket description is fixed.
  * Is the one from comment:33 addressed?
  * Is the one from comment:42 addressed? I understand that one isn't
 critical, though.
  * The one from comment:43 does not seem to be addressed, and I think I
 didn't mention it upstream, yet.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/13731#comment:70>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica, 
and MATLAB

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-trac" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac?hl=en.

Reply via email to