Re: [9fans] leak

[Axel Belinfante <Axel.Belinfante@cs.utwente.nl>]

> > I've been adding 'setmalloctag(x, getcallerpc(&foo))'
> > by hand in the source to slowly get to the caller
> > of the caller of (the caller of ...) of malloc
> > and could imagine there is a better way... ?
> 
> That's what I use.  If you allocate something and return it
> to your caller and he has the responsibility to free it,
> then call setmalloctag() to push that responsibility
> onto him.

ok. unfortunately this was not in my own code,
but in libsec (mostly x509.c).
I submitted a patch to plug the leaks I encountered --
should I also submit a patch for the setmalloctag's
I added to analyse what goes on?

> Or just think really hard.

even with leak(1) and additional setmalloctag calls
I already had to think hard enough to make sure
I did (free) the right thing (at the right place).


Something else about leak:
when I run it in textual mode (no option or -s)
it doesn't report leaks.
when I run it in graphical mode (-b) I do get
red pieces in the picture.
This surprises (confuses) me a bit.


Charles said:
> there was an older acid leak detection library that
> took a snapshot of the call stack on each allocation.
> that was useful, as you say.

(just curious)
any particular reason this was deprecated (assuming it is)?


Axel.