Mail Archives: cygwin/2004/02/17/12:33:54
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 11:09:39AM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>I believe a destructor would be cleaner, and the current code obviously
>>misses at least one more place where this is needed. Unfortunately, with
>>my copyright assignment in flux, I can't send in a patch. If noone fixes
>>this by the time I can send patches, I'll try to send in a fix for this.
>
>It's not that simple. path_conv objects can persist, even over fork/exec.
>So a simple destructor would be guaranteed to do the wrong thing.
Actually maybe it is that simple. In my exhaustive testing (i.e., one
program) it seems like a destructor works just fine. This is, I
suppose, a tribute to the person who wrote most of the path handling
code. I should have had more faith in his abilities.
On reflection, another reason for not doing things this way was to avoid
the cost of a destructor for all of the cases that path_conv was used
when it wasn't really needed for the vast majority of cases. I've been
trying to move more and more to using fhandler_* instead of path_conv
and fhandler does free normalized_path. However, I obviously haven't
done a 100% conversion so it's better to be safe.
I'm running the test suite now. If cygwin survives with the destructor,
I'll check it in and generate a snapshot.
cgf
--
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 -