Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 00:55:06 +0200 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@bitbox.follo.net> To: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> Cc: Eivind Eklund <perhaps@yes.no>, phk@critter.freebsd.dk, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free (was: Memory leak in getservbyXXX?) Message-ID: <19970922005506.48602@bitbox.follo.net> In-Reply-To: <199709212247.QAA28054@rocky.mt.sri.com>; from Nate Williams on Sun, Sep 21, 1997 at 04:47:19PM -0600 References: <199709182202.PAA10664@hub.freebsd.org> <199709211737.TAA20833@bitbox.follo.net> <199709212247.QAA28054@rocky.mt.sri.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 21, 1997 at 04:47:19PM -0600, Nate Williams wrote: > Eivind Eklund writes: > > [Andrew Atrens] > > > >From what I can tell Poul your free() actually gives the memory back to the > > > OS ( at least some of the time ). > > > > If this is correct, it breaks ANSI C behaviour. > > Huh? I didn't realize ANSI mandated OS support. Can you quote chapter > and verse that says this? It doesn't. However, it has a formulation that IMHO is too restrictive - that free() 'makes the memory available for further use by the program' (from memory). Thus, an implementation of malloc()/free() that give memory back to the OS is in violation of the standard. (Not that I'm certain how a program would detect this - at least I personally would consider a program that relies on being able to re-allocate memory that it has freed buggy.) Eivind.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970922005506.48602>