[Gc] a bug in v.7.1 ?

Bruce Hoult bruce at hoult.org
Tue Mar 1 14:14:24 PST 2011

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 8:03 AM, Glauco Masotti <glauco.masotti at libero.it> wrote:
> Hi Bruce.
> I made more than that: I disabled the GC! A lot of the code has never been
> tested in this condition, because for years I used to go with the GC,
> however I continued to write the code as if  manual memory management (MMM)
> could also be used.
> Maybe I have some leaks, but hitherto everything seems to go right! I am
> impressed :-)
> But I am so surprised that this problem came out after using 7.1 for years!
> As for 6.6 it behaves the same, while 6.2, contrarily to what I said in my
> previous mail, only delays the problem.
> So, if it's a bug it has been there for a long time, so it's very strange
> that none has found it before.
> If it's not a bug, what can be the cause of this problem, given that with
> MMM the program behaves correctly?!

If your code works with malloc() and free() then my guess that you're
using GC_free() is correct?

When you use the GC, are you mapping free() to GC_free() or to no-op?

More information about the Gc mailing list