From owner-freebsd-bugs Wed Aug 11 0:54: 4 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-bugs@freebsd.org Received: from flood.ping.uio.no (flood.ping.uio.no [129.240.78.31]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53AEB14E34 for ; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 00:54:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from des@flood.ping.uio.no) Received: (from des@localhost) by flood.ping.uio.no (8.9.3/8.9.3) id JAA11290; Wed, 11 Aug 1999 09:53:15 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from des) To: Peter Jeremy Cc: freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/5604: setenv(3) function has memory leak, other bugs References: <199908102200.PAA25697@freefall.freebsd.org> From: Dag-Erling Smorgrav Date: 11 Aug 1999 09:53:14 +0200 In-Reply-To: Peter Jeremy's message of "Tue, 10 Aug 1999 15:00:02 -0700 (PDT)" Message-ID: Lines: 14 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.5/Emacs 19.34 Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Peter Jeremy writes: > The approach used in Solaris and OSF/1 (I'm not sure what POSIX > mandates) is not to have a setenv(3) at all. Instead putenv(3) > directly manipulates the environment and requires that the string > pointed to by its argument remain valid (ie not be an automatic > variable). This pushes the memory management issue onto the > application. We have putenv() too, but it's just a wrapper for setenv(). I think we should rewrite our putenv() to conform to the SUSV2 (as described above) DES -- Dag-Erling Smorgrav - des@flood.ping.uio.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message