Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Ian Collins <ian-news@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:03:09 +1300
Yevgen Muntyan wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2008 09:49:42 -0600, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:<OT>Unlike some other platforms, Linux and UNIX platforms in general
One wonders how many applications they've screwed over with that bitSure. That's why seeing an app crash on a linux box is "no big
of asinine idiocy.
surprise" anymore. It's also one of the reasons I don't run Linux
anymore except when I absolutely have to. It's not the kernel's
fault, but it is a problem with the normal way the platform is deployed.
offer the user a choice of desktop environments. One popular
alternative is written in TOL, which is better equipped to manage
dynamic memory</OT>
You mean those application will abort in the unexpected exception
handler instead of inside g_malloc()? Sure, that's certainly better.
No, I mean the application can choose where in the call chain to catch
memory allocation failures and take appropriate action. It can also use
appropriate techniques not available to a C application to manage the
lifetime of allocated memory, reducing the risk of leaks leading to
premature memory exhaustion.
--
Ian Collins.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- References:
- xmalloc string functions
- From: Malcolm McLean
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Kelsey Bjarnason
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Ian Collins
- Re: xmalloc string functions
- From: Yevgen Muntyan
- xmalloc string functions
- Prev by Date: Re: xmalloc string functions
- Next by Date: Re: Linux Kernel Source
- Previous by thread: Re: xmalloc string functions
- Next by thread: Re: xmalloc string functions
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|