Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/02/16/21:34:33
At 01:20 PM 2/16/2004 -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 12:36:14PM -0500, Thomas L Roche wrote:
>>
>>No, I have discovered considerably more. Consequently my question is,
>>is the path_conv bad?
>
>What you are debugging is the consequences of cmalloc being NULL. While
>that may illustrate that cygwin should recover more robustly from such a
>situation, it is not directly related to the problem at hand, namely,
>"Why is cmalloc returning NULL?"
I noticed that a) Thomas' file names are unusually long and
b) path_conv::set_normalized_path calls cmalloc only for long paths.
Thus I decided to check if the normalized path is correctly freed.
That would explain why cmalloc is returning NULL.
As far as I can see, it isn't freed, at least not all the time.
When running /bin/ls very_long_path I see 4 allocs and 2 frees.
However I don't find an obvious bug and I don't have the time to pursue
this for the moment.
Pierre
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -