Дана 24/09/22 07:57PM, Страхиња Радић написа:
> Дана 24/09/22 07:20PM, bi...@iscarioth.org написа:
> > malloc(13);/* <--- what will happen, a leak, it
> > will be freed ? */
>
> That will cause a memory leak. Every successful allocation needs to
> have a corresponding call to f
Hello,
s...@strahinja.org wrote on Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:35:42PM +0200:
> Still, while most OSes (including OpenBSD) do free the leaked memory
> on program termination, there are some which don't.[1]
> [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/2975844/184064
I think you are spreading fear, uncertainty,
>
> It's an exact copy, all memory allocations remain the same.
>
Please forgive the pedantic correction, but, although I don't know how
OpenBSD does it, I certainly hope that OpenBSD does it the way other
operating systems do it: the memory in the child process is not "an
exact copy" -- the me
Thanks for your answers !
Each information from both of you are interesting !
Sorry for disturbing and take a lot from your free times.
On 2024-09-22T21:08:04.000+02:00, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 08:07:54PM +0200, Страхиња Радић wrote:
>
>
> >Дана 24/09/22 07:59PM,
Hello, I was wondering if anyone was running OpenBSD on their
Windows Dev Kit 2023, and if so, do you have any trouble/pain points
with it. I have one currently running windows, but if vmm/vmd
eventually run on arm64 it would make a nice little
virtualization machine.
Дана 24/09/22 07:20PM, bi...@iscarioth.org написа:
> malloc(13);/* <--- what will happen, a leak, it
> will be freed ? */
That will cause a memory leak. Every successful allocation needs to
have a corresponding call to free(3).
Check malloc(3) for more details. In particular,
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 08:07:54PM +0200, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> Дана 24/09/22 07:59PM, Страхиња Радић написа:
> > Of course, that would cause a memory leak if the memory was assigned to
> > a variable, like this:
> >
> > char* tmp = malloc(13);
> >
> > otherwise, like this:
> >
> > m
Дана 24/09/22 07:59PM, Страхиња Радић написа:
> Of course, that would cause a memory leak if the memory was assigned to
> a variable, like this:
>
> char* tmp = malloc(13);
>
> otherwise, like this:
>
> malloc(13);
>
> the result is discarded and a warning is printed if the program
Дана 24/09/22 09:08PM, Otto Moerbeek написа:
> All correct, but still, on process exit all resources used by a
> program are cleaned up. In that sense it is not a memory leak to not
> call free. Especially for one-time allocations.
Still, while most OSes (including OpenBSD) do free the leaked memo
Dear Ingo,
While I agree with what you said, the decision of whether to free the
successful allocations in a program is not trivial. If nothing else,
opposed to the "fear" (as you put it) of not having the memory freed on
program exit is the other extreme: the inertia and complacency of not
doing
Дана 24/09/22 07:55AM, Jesse Lawton написа:
> Done.
>
> Thanks
> Jesse Lawton
> /usr/obj/ports/pkgconf-1.6.3/pkgconf-1.6.3/libpkgconf/dependency.c:115
> [pkgconf_dependency_t *add_or_replace_dependency_node(const pkgconf_client_t
> *, pkgconf_dependency_t *, pkgconf_list_t *)]: added dependency
Hello OpenBSD team
I'm having a little trouble understanding how this works.
of fork(2), according to man. It's an exact copy of the parent
process.
There are limitations that are explicit in the man. However,
I wanted to know if the pointers we use are the same.
For example, if I had allocate
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:08:56AM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org wrote:
> Hello OpenBSD team
>
> I'm having a little trouble understanding how this works.
>
> of fork(2), according to man. It's an exact copy of the parent
> process.
>
> There are limitations that are explicit in the man. However,
Attached is an example C program using fork(2). It dynamically
allocates a string array with malloc(3), then forks. Child free(3)s the
array, sleep(3)s for 3 seconds, then exits. Parent wait(2)s for
children, then prints the array. The array in the parent is not
affected by free(3) in the child
On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 05:33:36PM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org wrote:
> Sorry for disturbing you, again...
>
> Does it means we should also free virtual memory from the child
> process before exiting ?
All resources used by a process are freed automatically when the
process ends. Typically, a for
So if I understand well, if a fork(2) come with execve(2) it freed
automatically the resources. However if fork(2) come with any
allocator, I should take care of it ?
On 2024-09-22T17:42:28.000+02:00, Otto Moerbeek
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 05:33:36PM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org wrote:
>
Дана 24/09/22 05:53PM, bi...@iscarioth.org написа:
> So if I understand well, if a fork(2) come with execve(2) it freed
> automatically the resources. However if fork(2) come with any
> allocator, I should take care of it ?
The parent and child processes are two separate processes, the child
the i
On 2024-09-22T18:40:44.000+02:00, Страхиња Радић wrote:
> Attached is an example C program using fork(2). It dynamically
> allocates a string array with malloc(3), then forks. Child free(3)s the
> array, sleep(3)s for 3 seconds, then exits. Parent wait(2)s for
> children, then prints the arra
Sorry for disturbing you, again...
Does it means we should also free virtual memory from the child
process before exiting ?
On 2024-09-22T10:27:56.000+02:00, Otto Moerbeek
wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:08:56AM +0200, bi...@iscarioth.org wrote:
>
>> Hello OpenBSD team
>>
>> I'm havin
19 matches
Mail list logo
