[#3358] Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare) — Patrick May <patrick@...>
Hello,
8 messages
2004/09/09
[#3359] Re: Fwd: fastcgi & continuations (Re: Idea: Webshare)
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2004/09/09
Patrick May (patrick@hexane.org) wrote:
[#3419] Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0 — Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
Hello list,
19 messages
2004/09/17
[#3422] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3423] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:01, ts wrote:
[#3424] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3425] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 12:37, ts wrote:
[#3426] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3428] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:05, ts wrote:
[#3429] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3430] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:30, ts wrote:
[#3431] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— ts <decoux@...>
2004/09/17
>>>>> "A" == Andrew Walrond <andrew@walrond.org> writes:
[#3432] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3433] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
There is a minor flaw in my analysis toward the end; ignore previous email
[#3434] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Andrew Walrond <andrew@...>
2004/09/17
On Friday 17 Sep 2004 13:50, ts wrote:
[#3437] Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
— Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
2004/09/17
Hi,
Re: Valgrind analysis of [BUG] unknown node type 0
From:
Robert McGovern <robert.mcgovern@...>
Date:
2004-09-17 10:56:31 UTC
List:
ruby-core #3421
> The global static variables lomem and himem in gc.c do not seem to be > initialised before use: > > $ grep -E \(lo\|hi\)mem gc.c > static RVALUE *himem, *lomem; > if (lomem == 0 || lomem > p) lomem = p; > if (himem < pend) himem = pend; > if (p < lomem || p > himem) return Qfalse; > > I assume the fix would be > static RVALUE *himem=0, *lomem=0; My understanding is that Statics are automatically initialized to 0 thought its recommended to do it explicitly. I don't have a copy of the C Standard around to verify this though. Found something here[1] and here [2] Rob [1] http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:j7lcXTGCmJkJ:www-ee.eng.hawaii.edu/Courses/EE150/Book/chap14/subsection2.1.1.6.html+C+static+variables&hl=en "While the static variable, sum, would be automatically initialized to zero, it is better to do so explicitly." [2] http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:VTTfL5D7IMYJ:publications.gbdirect.co.uk/c_book/chapter6/initialization.html+C+static+variable+initialization&hl=en "Unless they have an explicit initializer, all objects with static duration are given implicit initializers—the effect is as if the constant 0 had been assigned to their components. This is in fact widely used—it is an assumption made by most C programs that external objects and internal static objects start with the value zero." -- Personal responsibility is battling extinction.