[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.

To: ole@monochrom.net
Subject: Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 14:13:15 +0100
Cc: mint@lists.fishpool.fi
In-reply-to: <4820b7501d52d7ae1865fe8db30bddc1-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBYWEJGUFEWXFloA1VTMl5cQkIDWFlcRFA=-webmailer2@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
List-help: <mailto:ecartis@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=help>
List-id: <mint.lists.fishpool.fi>
List-owner: <mailto:tjhukkan@fishpool.fi>
List-post: <mailto:mint@lists.fishpool.fi>
List-subscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <mailto:mint-request@lists.fishpool.fi?Subject=unsubscribe>
References: <7056cab2ac2ed3d6d842575e2d0f8974-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBeX15ZVF0WXV1oAFFQMl5cQkIDXl1ZQVA=-webmailer1@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de> <4FB2CDCA.8050901@fairlite.co.uk> <f6e8ef24f54194e59b7ac612a82627fa-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBeX15ZVF0WXV1oAFFQMl5cQkIDXVpeRlg=-webmailer1@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de> <4FB38FA8.50005@fairlite.co.uk> <83776526b26d9e42a47fb014043936f4-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBYWEJGUFEWXFloA1VTMl5cQkIDWFtdQ1s=-webmailer2@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de> <4FB3A2D4.6030809@fairlite.co.uk> <3de94e767325a22b8debcfcc36d32e07-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBYWEJGUFEWXFloA1VTMl5cQkIDWFhQR1k=-webmailer2@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de> <4820b7501d52d7ae1865fe8db30bddc1-EhVcX1lFRQVaRwYcDTpQCEFddQZLVF5dQUNBAjBYWEJGUFEWXFloA1VTMl5cQkIDWFlcRFA=-webmailer2@server03.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
Sender: mint-bounce@lists.fishpool.fi
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120508 Thunderbird/12.0.1

On 05/16/12 14:05, Ole wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 16.05.2012, 14:56 +0200 schrieb Ole <ole@monochrom.net>:
>
>> The potential fix is to remove the (nonsense) Mfree() from tfork.
>
> Just to make things clear... I appreciate that you replied to my
> request. However,
> I was mostly concerned about my own understanding of the function -
> that's why I asked.
>
> Of course this is nothing urgent. I'm going to use my of fork of tfork
> ... so my code
> doesn't depend on the mintlib tfork thing.
>  But of course I want it to be clean, and I thought I found an serious
> bug
> ( I still believe it is ) and wanted to make sure that my
> understanding is correct.

It sounds like it is a bug. I've never used tfork(), and it looks like a
MiNT extension that's not globally used, so I'm sure bugs will be lurking.

Submit a patch to the list, and I'll get it committed.

Alan.

References:
- [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: "m0n0" <ole@monochrom.net>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: "m0n0" <ole@monochrom.net>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Ole <ole@monochrom.net>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Alan Hourihane <alanh@fairlite.co.uk>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Ole <ole@monochrom.net>
- Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
  - From: Ole <ole@monochrom.net>

Prev by Date: Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
Next by Date: Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
Previous by thread: Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
Next by thread: Re: [MiNT] tfork() bug.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread