On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:41:33PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > >> This worked well under Linux with GCC. It cleared the Valgrind squawks. > > Why is anyone obsessed about freeing memory that is assigned to > static pointers at most once. There's no "memory leak" associated > with such allocations because the amout of extra memory used is > fixed. They pollute output which make it difficult to determine other issues. At minimum, wasting time on these leaks is time that could be spent on real issues or additional development.
(And its not just me - from the bug reports around the web, its appears a lot of folks are wasting time on these issues). >> > There's a few bug reports circulating on the finding: >> > >> > * https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=584968 >> > * http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2561&user=guest&pass=guest >> > * http://rt.openssl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=2439&user=guest&pass=guest >> > >> > What is the preferred way to free ssl_comp_methods? > > There are probably more productive improvements that can be made > to the library. Yeah, you're right. This one's so difficult its hard to imagine anyone would want to tackle it. Jeff ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org User Support Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
