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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
