Ethereal development <ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb am 13.10.05 15:33:51:
>
> To avoid usage of g_malloc() which results crashes in ethereal, I replaced all g_malloc() (about 3000 occurences) by malloc and g_malloc0() by calloc. Because when the memory is allocated by a g_malloc, it is not returned to system by calling g_free() and stays in application free memory heap. The problem is, if this free memory is tried to be allocated by another g_malloc(), ethereal crashes. (write error)
>
> By replacing g_malloc() by malloc(), when the used memory is returned to system by free(), the memory can be reallocated by another malloc() call which doesn't crash ethereal
>
> Could you confirm this result? And my question is :
> why didn't you limit the usage of g_malloc() or why didn't you replace all g_malloc() by another suitable memory allocation function in actual release?
>
If you look at the implementation of g_malloc (and g_malloc0, ...), it will simply call malloc with a check if it returns NULL and close down the app in this case. There's no additional heap management, so your assumptions are simply incorrect, replacing g_malloc with malloc doesn't make a difference.
BTW: removing g_malloc calls won't help to avoid *all* g_malloc calls, as a lot of GLib and GTK+ functions internally use g_malloc too.
Please see also http://wiki.ethereal.com/EMEMification for some effort to reduce memory management problems.
Regards, ULFL
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
