1. safe.e (to Rob)
Here's a message I sent to Lucius Hilley:
"The bad thing about safe.e is it doesn't catch machine code bugs right, cos
if you have a memory leak affecting the code, then replace machine.e for
safe.e it changes all the positioning of the code and the leak is not the
same place so you don't have the problem anymore, and can't find it."
Any idea how to get around this problem, or change the code so that safe.e
is the same length as machine.e when converted to Eu's internal format?
-Mark (Perhaps It's easier to give up and rewrite any suspicious looking
code?)
2. Re: safe.e (to Rob)
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
Jun 22, 1999
-
Last edited Jun 23, 1999
Hi Mark,
> ...it changes all the positioning of the code and the leak is
> not the same place so you don't have the problem anymore,
> and can't find it."
The same thing happens in C. You have a memory bug,
so you recompile everything with the full-debugging option so
you have a chance of finding it. Then the bug goes away!
I don't think there's much that can be done about it.
Keeping the files the same overall size probably wouldn't
be enough. The fact that many routines are of different sizes
would throw off the memory allocator enough to change
all the addresses.
At least safe.e is a lot better than what C provides.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
