>ZLib implementations on Windows NT should be unaffected by the "double >free" bug, as long as they use the heap management functions of the Runtime >Library (RTL), or any front-end to them, since these functions do a pretty >good job at preventing heap corruption and access violations Catching double free()s is one thing, preventing heap corruption is quite something different. If a piece of memory is freed twice, it can be handed back out before the second (incorrect) free occurs. Aside, if double free catching alone is sufficient to be considered safe from this zlib bug, then Solaris standard libc malloc is also safe; it catches double frees in several ways. (Last value free()d w/o intervening value; checks for existance on the free list and whether it is marked free) Casper
