On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> At 10:09 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Feb 2004, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >
> >> At 01:20 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >> >On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Thomas L Roche wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>No, I have discovered considerably more. Consequently my question is,
> >> >>is the path_conv bad?
> >> >
> >> >What you are debugging is the consequences of cmalloc being NULL. While
> >> >that may illustrate that cygwin should recover more robustly from such a
> >> >situation, it is not directly related to the problem at hand, namely,
> >> >"Why is cmalloc returning NULL?"
> >>
> >> I noticed that a) Thomas' file names are unusually long and
> >> b) path_conv::set_normalized_path calls cmalloc only for long paths.
> >>
> >> Thus I decided to check if the normalized path is correctly freed.
> >> That would explain why cmalloc is returning NULL.
> >> As far as I can see, it isn't freed, at least not all the time.
> >> When running /bin/ls very_long_path I see 4 allocs and 2 frees.
> >>
> >> However I don't find an obvious bug and I don't have the time to pursue
> >> this for the moment.
> >>
> >> Pierre
> >
> >If I read the code correctly, normalized_path has to be explicitly freed.
> >One of the places normalized_path is freed is in conv_path_list_buf_size,
> >and the cfree is followed by the following FIXME comment:
> >
> > cfree (pc.normalized_path);
> > // FIXME - probably should be in a destructor but
> > // it's hard to justify a destructor for the few
> > // places where this is needed
> >
> >I believe a destructor would be cleaner, and the current code obviously
> >misses at least one more place where this is needed. Unfortunately, with
> >my copyright assignment in flux, I can't send in a patch. If noone fixes
> >this by the time I can send patches, I'll try to send in a fix for this.
>
> Yep, I saw that. There are also two other cfree spots, the main one in
> fhandler.cc
> and an unusual one in syscalls.cc. Btw., it looks like normalized path is
> already
> set when alloc is called again. If so a destructor would not help. But that
> overwriting may also be a normal side effect of fhandler_base::operator = .
>
> Pierre
True. The real "right thing to do" would be freeing normalized_path in
set_normalized_path before the calloc, as well as adding a destructor.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
|\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' Igor Pechtchanski, Ph.D.
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow!
"I have since come to realize that being between your mentor and his route
to the bathroom is a major career booster." -- Patrick Naughton
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
