|
From: Josef W. <Jos...@gm...> - 2010-06-06 20:33:02
|
On Friday 04 June 2010, R. P. Janaka wrote: > As mentioned in the manual, I was able to avoid this by using the* ** > --separate-recs=10* . > But I am still wondering why we get cycle for new or malloc (because they > should never call recursively ) Probably not a direct cycle, but a false one. It could be (just guessing): - malloc needs the runtime linker on first call - the runtime linker sometimes needs malloc Anyway, by traversing direct callees residing in the cycle function, you should be able to find a cyclic call chain yourself. Josef |