gnupic: Re: [gnupic] gpasm memory leaks
Subject:
Re: [gnupic] gpasm memory leaks
From:
"David Barnett" ####@####.####
Date:
4 Jun 2007 18:55:01 +0100
Message-Id: <01b901c7a6d0$c5499250$0301a8c0@barnett2>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Jackson" ####@####.####
Newsgroups: chiark.mail.linuxhacker.gnupic
To: ####@####.####
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [gnupic] gpasm memory leaks
> David Barnett writes ("Re: [gnupic] gpasm memory leaks"):
>> A status update on the memory leaks for those interested: [...]
>
> Sorry to rain on your parade, but I have to ask: _why_ are we fixing
> memory leaks in a PIC assembler ?
<snip>
> The obvious conclusion is that the gpasm code shouldn't ever call
> `free'. That way there can be no double-free bugs or use-after-free
> bugs and the like.
*Is* that the obvious conclusion? I really don't know about the coding
standards we adhere to, but I got the impression all well-written software
should be free of memory leaks period. I realize most of the leaks won't
affect much, but I had no idea anyone would recommend intentionally leaving
memory leaks to prevent other bugs. If that's the consensus, I certainly
won't object.
Does everyone else agree?
David Barnett
