Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 23:34:41 +0900 (JST) Message-Id: <200110051434.XAA17399@mail.raidway.ne.jp> From: Yasushi Higuchi To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: getcwd() problem Cc: deo AT logos-m DOT ru In-Reply-To: <17911642410.20011005162352@logos-m.ru> References: <200110051213 DOT VAA12158 AT mail DOT raidway DOT ne DOT jp> <17911642410 DOT 20011005162352 AT logos-m DOT ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Becky! ver. 2.00.07 On Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:23:52 +0400 egor duda wrote: >Single Unix Specification v2 says that "If buf is a null pointer, the >behaviour of getcwd() is undefined." >cygwin doesn't support this extension. it's arguable whether it should >be added or not. code that implicitly allocates (on doesn't allocate, >depending in parameters) memory on heap is a source of potential >memory leaks. Yes. It is understood. But, as for the program written like >>> char *cwd = getcwd(NULL, 256); as ISO C, a problem occurs in snapshot. Is this the thing of the problem which should cope with it on the application side? -- Yasushi HIGUCHI -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/