httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tony Finch <...@dotat.at>
Subject Re: SDBM 2.0 'namespace protection'
Date Fri, 01 Dec 2000 00:10:56 GMT
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> 
>> I don't see any purpose served by losing any of those mods.
>
>The reason for losing those mods, is that pools are the wrong solution, as
>is, I believe APR.  APR would be the correct solution if it wasn't tied to
>pools, but it is.

On the whole the sdbm changes (relative to the sdbm in perl) are
minor, afaics. I can't see that the use of pools is a problem (mostly
because sdbm doesn't do much allocation), except in one case: in
sdbm_open() a malloc() followed almost immediately by a free() was
changed into allocation from a long-lived pool (i.e. a memory leak).

Tony.
-- 
f.a.n.finch     dot@dotat.at     fanf@covalent.net     Chad for President!

Mime
View raw message