From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 19 04:34:05 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id EAA05437 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:34:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (root@gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com [207.113.159.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id EAA05432 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:34:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (root@sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.191]) by gatekeeper.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id EAA00184; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com [192.168.241.194]) by sunrise.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA22114; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:32:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from gdonl@localhost) by salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id EAA01920; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:32:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Don Lewis Message-Id: <199709191132.EAA01920@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com> Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 04:32:37 -0700 In-Reply-To: Darryl Okahata "Re: Bug in malloc/free (was: Memory leak in getservbyXXX?)" (Sep 18, 5:13pm) X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.6 alpha(3) 7/19/95) To: darrylo@sr.hp.com, "Jordan K. Hubbard" Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free (was: Memory leak in getservbyXXX?) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sep 18, 5:13pm, Darryl Okahata wrote: } Subject: Re: Bug in malloc/free (was: Memory leak in getservbyXXX?) } > Man, I sure wish there was a copy of purify available for FreeBSD. } > It's great at catching stuff like this! :( } } Yeah, me too. Purify may be "black magic", but it's incredible at } how well it works. } } Anyway, if anyone has copious amounts of free time, they might want } to port "checker", a vaguely purify-like memory checker for } Linux/Solaris. It works by using a special patched version of GNU as } and runtime libraries. I've had very good luck with the bounds checker patches to gcc. You can find it at URL: . It's very good at finding the exact location of bugs like array overruns, incrementing pointers past the end of objects, attempting to access freed memory, etc. It's two big weaknesses are the inability to check signal handlers, and a vast appetite for CPU cycles. I've typically seen CPU usage increase by a factor of 10 to 20. --- Truck