|
From: Ethan A M. <merritt@u.washington.edu> - 2006-06-29 17:46:58
|
On Thursday 29 June 2006 10:10 am, you wrote: > > I do see some more dodgy potential memory leak code in command.c. That use of do_line() followed by a free of a non-static memory pointer: (from do_string, ... in most cases the command given to it by the mouse and so on should not fail) > > do_line(); > strcpy(gp_input_line, orig_input_line); > free(orig_input_line); You mean because it might int_error() inside do_line()? The possibility of a memory leak triggered only by a user error doesn't bother me nearly as much as a memory that can happen during correct usage. Presumably if it's a script that errors out, they've got bigger problems than the memory leak. I did find one other thing inadvertantly while testing on VMS, however. Some of the demos use deprecated syntax that only works if you build with BACKWARDS_COMPATIBLE defined. They should be fixed to use the current syntax, since they serve as coding examples. I logged a feature request to track this. -- Ethan A Merritt Biomolecular Structure Center University of Washington, Seattle 98195-7742 |