> return malloc(size ? size : 1);
>
> That's a constant pointer, and you can read 1 byte beyond it (the '\0')
The '\0'? You mean the pseudorandom byte that happens to be in the
heap at the beginning of the malloc block?
> Anything wrong with that as parrot's malloc wrapper?
That would keep bo
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 03:26:28PM -0500, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> I'm working on taking the perl function and stripping out the parts we don't
> need. I should have it tonight. My thought is that we can add some stuff
> in later and Parrot_printf should only have the bare necessities (the
or strings). Does that
sound ok?
Tanton
-Original Message-
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi
To: Timur Safin
Cc: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs; 'Josh Wilmes '; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/17/2001 3:24 PM
Subject: Re: "Automated" Purify Run
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:32AM +0400, Timur Safin
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:32AM +0400, Timur Safin wrote:
> Hi Jarkko,
>
> Here is that the SUSV2 prescribe to do in this situation.
>
> The Single UNIX ® Specification, Version 2, Copyright © 1997 The Open Group
> "
> NAME
> malloc - a memory allocator
> ...
I'm reading the same pag
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:06:32AM +0400, Timur Safin wrote:
> Here is that the SUSV2 prescribe to do in this situation.
Unfortunately, it's no good programming to standards; we have to program
around them.
--
I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year's fashions.
-
From: "Jarkko Hietaniemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "'Josh Wilmes '" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: "Automated"
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:38:26PM +0300, Jarkko Hietaniemi wrote:
> How about always allocating size+1 and stomping '\0' to the [size]th bytes?
I'm trying to kill off that age-old C-ism and brainwash people into believing
that a null in a string is just as significant as any other byte, so that
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:33:53PM -0500, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> Okey Dokey. With that being the case, it appears we should rethink
> string_grow/string_make. If we get a length of 0, we should allocate 1 byte
> and store '\0' in it
Nope. If we get a length of 0, we don't do anything. S
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:33:53PM -0500, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> Okey Dokey. With that being the case, it appears we should rethink
> string_grow/string_make. If we get a length of 0, we should allocate 1 byte
> and store '\0' in it (really storing '\0' is not necessary, but it is always
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:30:22PM -0500, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> Well, that explains the last Purify issue. Whenever we substr out 0 bytes
> to a NULL register, we create a string by malloc(0). If we later print that
Not so. Depending on the implementation malloc(0) may do any of
the f
eing 0, but this way
it will be portable.
Does this sound ok?
Tanton
-Original Message-
From: Jarkko Hietaniemi
To: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs
Cc: 'Josh Wilmes '; ''[EMAIL PROTECTED] ' '
Sent: 9/17/2001 2:26 PM
Subject: Re: "Automated" Purify Run
On
PROTECTED] ' '
Sent: 9/17/2001 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: "Automated" Purify Run
Purify instrumented foo (pid 11272)
ABR: Array bounds read:
* This is occurring while in:
_doprnt[libc.so.1]
printf [libc.so.1]
main
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 02:18:16PM -0500, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs wrote:
> The hourly should be fine...can you do me one other favor and run the
> following c snippet through Purify:
>
> int main() {
> char* c = (char*)malloc(0);
I can tell without Purify that malloc(0) is unportable.
(As is cal
Josh Wilmes
> To: Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs
> Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED] '
> Sent: 9/17/2001 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: "Automated" Purify Run
>
> It should now be running once an hour. (it broke due to some makefile
> changes yesterday).
>
> I can't really
CTED] '
Sent: 9/17/2001 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: "Automated" Purify Run
It should now be running once an hour. (it broke due to some makefile
changes yesterday).
I can't really do it easily on-demand, due to the way this is set up.
--Josh
At 13:05 on 09/17/2001 CDT, Gibb
It should now be running once an hour. (it broke due to some makefile
changes yesterday).
I can't really do it easily on-demand, due to the way this is set up.
--Josh
At 13:05 on 09/17/2001 CDT, Gibbs Tanton - tgibbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like to me that this is only running
It looks like to me that this is only running every day. Can we get it to
run every hour? Perhaps even on demand? I think I have fixed all of the
memory access errors but one.
-Original Message-
From: Josh Wilmes
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 9/15/2001 5:16 PM
Subject: "Automated" Purif
17 matches
Mail list logo
