Re: Memory leak a "fix" for stable tree?

[Derek Robert Price]

Larry Jones wrote:

> Derek Robert Price writes:
>  
>
> > Just wondering if anyone had an opinion on this.  I have a six or seven 
> > line fix for a memory leak (usually only a few bytes leak, and not more 
> > than what has already been allocated for argv) that I'm getting ready to 
> > commit to the feature branch.  Is that a valid fix for the stable tree, 
> > or are we only fixing errors that cause user-perceivable problems there?
> >    
>
> I'd say it's a valid fix for the stable tree, provided it's a valid fix
> at all -- I'm pretty sure I've run the whole test suite under Purify
> without it reporting any leaks.
>  

I just looked again, and you are correct.  I just missed where the 
pointer was kept track of.  I'll review what I did and probably back 
that out of feature.

Derek

--
               *8^)

Email: derek@ximbiot.com

Get CVS support at <http://ximbiot.com>!
--
The Gothic idea that we were to look backwards instead of forwards for the
improvement of the human mind, and to recur to the annals of our ancestors for
what is most perfect in government, in religion and in learning, is worthy of
those bigots in religion and government by whom it has been recommended, and
whose purposes it would answer.  But it is not an idea which this country will
endure.
                        - Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Priestley, 1800