On 30 Mar 2005 Daniel THOMPSON <daniel.thompson@xxxxxx> wrote: > Stefan Huelswitt wrote: >> >> Wow, this is cool. How did you get the idea to search in that >> direction? > > I got the idea from the reading your patch and the premise that it was > unlikely that there was a bug in glibc. > > Put simply I *never* blame core software like glibc or the compiler for > bugs unless it is proved to me. These bits of software are so widely > used that while blaming them is not *always* wrong it usually saves a > lot of time to audit your own code first. Also I've met Ulrich Drepper > and wouldn't want to let him catch me blaming glibc for something it > didn't do. Right, I wasn't pretty sure but as I'm using an older glibc version it might have been fixed in current version... >> What about this? >> >> if (description!=NULL && (n != 4 || isempty(description))) > > Looks fine to me. For belt and braces we should probably also assert > that description is NULL when we enter the call (or test it and free it). >From my investigations, I can say that it seems to be NULL always (I checked this, because this was my first idea for the leak). Regards. -- Stefan Huelswitt s.huelswitt@xxxxxx | http://www.muempf.de/
