Hi there,
Paul Smith wrote on 14/10/07 22:17:
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 18:33 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
Do they get free'd up when make exits?
No. It's quite difficult to do this since the variables are static and
so are only visible within that function. In order to free them we'd
have to add
On Mon, 2007-10-15 at 20:12 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
the OS should cover that, but in some case I wonder if there may be a
leak left. Would the DOS version for instance result in lost memory the
OS cannot reallocate? (I'm not a DOS expert to answer that)
I would be surprised, since DOS is so
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 20:12:37 +0100
From: Jon Grant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: bug-make@gnu.org
Paul Smith wrote on 14/10/07 22:17:
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 18:33 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
Do they get free'd up when make exits?
No. It's quite difficult to do this since the variables are
Hi,
In function library_search(),
libpatterns and buf is malloced memory in line 1486 and 1553 respectively.
They are not freed.
Is this true?
- Zhongxing Xu
___
Bug-make mailing list
Bug-make@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 20:40 +0800, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
In function library_search(),
libpatterns and buf is malloced memory in line 1486 and 1553
respectively.
They are not freed.
Is this true?
Correct, they are not freed--but no, this is not a memory leak. These
variables are declared
Paul Smith wrote on 14/10/07 17:39:
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 20:40 +0800, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
In function library_search(),
libpatterns and buf is malloced memory in line 1486 and 1553
respectively.
They are not freed.
Is this true?
Correct, they are not freed--but no, this is not a memory
On Sun, 2007-10-14 at 18:33 +0100, Jon Grant wrote:
Do they get free'd up when make exits?
No. It's quite difficult to do this since the variables are static and
so are only visible within that function. In order to free them we'd
have to add them to some kind of global free list that could be
