Re: Leak Sanitizer - how to suppress leaks

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Sep 16,  7:47am, Robert Elz wrote:
} 
} I used to program such things in the past (distant past) - one of the
} requirements of the particular system I was using was that processes
} were not allowed to run for "too long" before calling the system process
} switch function (no kernel running clock interrupts to do time slicing).

     That was Windows for a very long time, i.e. co-operative
multi-tasking.  I wrote one Windows app in the Windows 3.1/95 era.
I hated it.  Terrible programming environment.  Heck, all of Windows
would stop running when you ran the application under a debugger.
At least I figured out a dual monitor setup (Windows running on a
VGA adapter and the debugger running on a Hercules adapter).

}   | In cases where it _is_ expensive, or at least where it's expensive to
}   | figure out, the same argument applies as against garbage collection:
}   | if you aren't sure what the lifetime of that object is, and the
}   | program isn't structured in a way that allows being reasomably sure it
}   | is disposed of exactly once, how can you have confidence in any other
}   | correctness properties?
} 
} That isn't the issue at all - in the programs in question, there's no
} issue with the lifetimes of objects, it is from creation until something
} explicitly makes them go away, or process exit, whichever comes first.

     Process exit does it much more efficiently as well.  Instead
of trying to find every object and free memory a few bytes at a
time, the entire address space is freed in fell swoop.

}-- End of excerpt from Robert Elz