On 04/01/2011 10:03 AM, WAROQUIERS Philippe wrote: >>> 2. add a new kind of error in memcheck: "failed (re-)allocation".
>> I support such a warning the first time (each) for malloc and realloc. >> For realloc because memcheck tries to increase the chances of >> such an error; >> for malloc because of general cleanliness. >> I'm wary of giving a warning every time: too much noise for >> good programs >> which correctly check and recover, but that happen to run out of space. > I understand the worry, but at least in my experience, I have not seen > much programs which effectively go to an out of memory situation and > then check and recover. I'd say it's the other way around: most programs already check. C++ implementations of 'new' and 'new[]' always check their results from malloc(), and often those are the only calls to malloc except for internal calls from libc itself, which of course checks. Most non-small projects already allocate indirectly, often using a symbol such as 'xmalloc'. Calls to malloc from third-party libraries are covered by interposing using LD_PRELOAD and RTLD_NEXT. (I admit that effective _recovery_ from 0==malloc() is almost non-existent.) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Create and publish websites with WebMatrix Use the most popular FREE web apps or write code yourself; WebMatrix provides all the features you need to develop and publish your website. http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-webmatrix-sf _______________________________________________ Valgrind-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/valgrind-users
