From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13237 invoked by alias); 20 Sep 2002 22:55:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13199 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 22:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO jackfruit.Stanford.EDU) (171.64.38.136) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 20 Sep 2002 22:55:15 -0000 Received: (from carlton@localhost) by jackfruit.Stanford.EDU (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g8KMtFI20403; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:55:15 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: jackfruit.Stanford.EDU: carlton set sender to carlton@math.stanford.edu using -f To: gdb Subject: xmmalloc? From: David Carlton Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 15:55:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00325.txt.bz2 Does GDB currently use xmmalloc in any consistent way? When writing functions that might call xmalloc, should I try to write versions that call xmmalloc instead and try to find an appropriate md to pass to them? If I don't do that but instead just use xmalloc, will anything bad happen? In particular, am I opening up myself to any new possible memory leaks, other than the ones that are, of course, always possible when calling xmalloc? Any background info on this would be appreciated. David Carlton carlton@math.stanford.edu