On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 10:53:31AM -0700, Zhigang Chen wrote: > Hi all > > Occasionally, I have seen some nodes have its parent pointer set to -1. Also > they seem to have been freed implicitly, because (1) freeing them explicitly > would throw error, (2) not freeing them does not incur memory leaks as > reported by xmlMemBlocks. > > I am wondering where in the source code the parent pointer is set to -1, and > why it's not set to 0.
The only way this could happen is if you compile with memory debug and then blocks which were allocated and then freed are overwritten with -1 to catch potential reuse after free errors see in xmlMemFree() / xmlmemory.c memset(target, -1, p->mh_size); Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ xml mailing list, project page http://xmlsoft.org/ [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/xml
