On 2017-04-04 16:04, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:50 AM, wrote:
On 2017-04-04 15:38, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
How about we just add backtrace_destroy_state?
I don't know how to code that. In my
https://github.com/bstarynk/melt-monitor I observed that calling free
on
su
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:50 AM, wrote:
> On 2017-04-04 15:38, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
>> How about we just add backtrace_destroy_state?
>
> I don't know how to code that. In my
> https://github.com/bstarynk/melt-monitor I observed that calling free on
> such
> a struct backtrace_state pointer i
On 2017-04-04 15:38, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:05 AM, wrote:
I just discovered that backtrace_create_state should be called once,
that it
is returning some heap-allocated data (which cannot be free-d, because
there
is no
backtrace_destroy_state routine).
I suggest t
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 5:05 AM, wrote:
>
> I just discovered that backtrace_create_state should be called once, that it
> is returning some heap-allocated data (which cannot be free-d, because there
> is no
> backtrace_destroy_state routine).
>
> I suggest the attached patch (against GCC trunk r2
Hello All,
I just discovered that backtrace_create_state should be called once,
that it is returning some heap-allocated data (which cannot be free-d,
because there is no
backtrace_destroy_state routine).
I suggest the attached patch (against GCC trunk r246678) which just
improves the commen
