Re: malloc and realloc
- From: "santosh" <santosh.k83@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jan 2007 10:04:23 -0800
tphipps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
At the risk of repeating myself...<snip>
On Jan 28, 4:20 pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Any time you see "x =realloc(x, size);" you have a potential
memory leak, and you know the coder is probably inexperienced.
Exceptions exist.
So there's a memory leak for some tiny number of clock cycles until
abort() is called... big deal.
Some primitive systems are unable to reclaim memory lost through a
program leak. DOS and Windows 3.x series were famous for this feature.
IIRC, even Windows 95 occasionally suffered from this deficiency.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: Richard Tobin
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: tphipps
- Re: malloc and realloc
- References:
- malloc and realloc
- From: ravi . cs . 2001
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: tphipps
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: CBFalconer
- Re: malloc and realloc
- From: tphipps
- malloc and realloc
- Prev by Date: Re: malloc and realloc
- Next by Date: Re: Best Multi-Platform Way to Define Standard Types Such as UINT32
- Previous by thread: Re: malloc and realloc
- Next by thread: Re: malloc and realloc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|