From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (list@euclid.skiles.gatech.edu [130.207.146.50]) by melb.werple.net.au (8.7.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id GAA01842 for ; Sun, 17 Mar 1996 06:00:17 +1100 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA01423; Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:46:24 -0500 (EST) Resent-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 13:46:24 -0500 (EST) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <9603161046.ZM7616@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 16 Mar 1996 10:46:33 -0800 In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi "Re: Buffered stderr on Linux" (Mar 13, 12:17am) References: <199603122317.AAA10871@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (3.2.1 24feb96 Caldera) To: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: Buffered stderr on Linux Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"QJPfE1.0.9M._nmIn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/833 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Mar 13, 12:17am, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: Re: Buffered stderr on Linux } } Bart Schaefer wrote: } > Stdio will call free() on the buffer at fclose(). } } Well I've just checked it on Solaris and Linux and it seems that you are } wrong. Hm. I was sure that I remembered running into a multiple-free problem at one point with this. However, the only notes I can find are about a case where we avoided setbuf because we couldn't readily track the buffer pointer all the way from setbuf to the fclose, and hence didn't know whether/when to free it. So either I've got some cruft from a really obscure platform floating around in my head, which is entirely possible, or I was confused. Sorry about the false alarm. -- Bart Schaefer http://www.well.com/user/barts