On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 07:47:24AM +0700, Robert Elz wrote: > | There have been OSes in the past where memory not freed yet at process > | exit is _not_ freed by the system, and there might be again, > > Please everyone, let's retain some perspective. Systems like those > (Roy mentioned RTEMS as an example) require specially constructed code, > as in a system where process termination doesn't free all the process's > resources, then what
The OS I was thinking of was a desktop OS that could (and did) run quite a bit of unix code. As I recall the various C runtimes available took some steps to avoid gaping memory leaks, but there's still no reason to not tidy up when one can. > The one reason for doing this kind of free() is so that LSan type analysers > can look at memory and report anything that wasn't freed. This is, however, itself a pretty good reason. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
