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 (8.7.5/8.7.3/2) with ESMTP id FAA13623 for ; Sun, 30 Jun 1996 05:34:37 +1000 (EST) Received: (from list@localhost) by euclid.skiles.gatech.edu (8.7.3/8.7.3) id PAA23686; Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:13:16 -0400 (EDT) Resent-Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 15:13:16 -0400 (EDT) From: "Bart Schaefer" Message-Id: <960629121357.ZM5651@candle.brasslantern.com> Date: Sat, 29 Jun 1996 12:13:55 -0700 In-Reply-To: Zoltan Hidvegi "Re: bug (?) in 3.0-pre1" (Jun 28, 7:50pm) References: <199606281750.TAA02803@bolyai.cs.elte.hu> Reply-To: schaefer@nbn.com X-Mailer: Z-Mail (4.0b.607 07jun96) To: Zoltan Hidvegi , zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Subject: Re: bug (?) in 3.0-pre1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Resent-Message-ID: <"3vqW73.0.zn5.C1Orn"@euclid> Resent-From: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/1484 X-Loop: zsh-workers@math.gatech.edu Precedence: list Resent-Sender: zsh-workers-request@math.gatech.edu On Jun 28, 7:50pm, Zoltan Hidvegi wrote: } Subject: Re: bug (?) in 3.0-pre1 } } I added an additional test to doshfunc() which revealed a memory leak } again. Below is the patch to fix that. Once again, I ask: Might it not be better to add at the top of doshfunc: int luh = useheap; if (!luh) heapalloc(); and then before returning: if (!luh) permalloc(); Seems like almost any of the MUSTUSEHEAP() functions should adjust and then restore the allocation strategy internally, rather than relying on every caller to do so ... -- Bart Schaefer Brass Lantern Enterprises http://www.well.com/user/barts http://www.nbn.com/people/lantern New male in /home/schaefer: >N 2 Justin William Schaefer Sat May 11 03:43 53/4040 "Happy Birthday"