- From: Michel Philip <philipm@altern.org>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 23:15:57 +0100
- To: Jeff Adams <jeffa@coursewave.com>
- Cc: www-lib@w3.org
Hi Jeff, I have tried to check if reversing the calls was obvious. But I see that: 1) HTHost_deleteAll() calls free_object which call HTChannel_delete 2) HTChannel_deleteAll() does not directly calls HTHost_xxx function Then I rather advice to let the calls in that order. To maillist reader think about what can make the crash I suggest you provide - global description of own program use the lib w3 or which sample you've based it on - how do you make the HTLibTerminate been called - the stack call beetween HTChannel_deleteAll() and HTHost_getReadNet() for it is not obviuos reading the code /m Jeff Adams wrote: > > Hello, > > In HTLibTerminate(void) of HTLib.c a number of cleanup/delete functions > are called, in particular, > > HTHost_deleteAll(); > followed by > HTChannel_deleteAll(); > > but I am wondering whether in fact > HTChannel_deleteAll() should be called BEFORE HTHost_deleteAll() > > the reason I ask this is that I just debugged a situation > in my app in which if the user requests a URL to a server > that either isn't up or gets shutdown while in use > a normal and proper "Failed to connect" error occurs. > > However, on shutdown of the app and within > the call to HTLibTerminate(void), I can get an unmapped memory > exception which is traced to the delete code in HTChannel_deleteAll() > requesting the use of the host associated with an apparently > still alive read channel which ends up > calling HTHost_getReadNet(HTHost * host) in HTHost.c > > Seeing that the code currently does a HTHost_deleteAll before calling > HTChannel_deleteAll I reversed the calling of these two functions > and it eliminated the unmapped exception. > > When HTHost_deleteAll() was added to HTLibTerminate do you think > someone just did not think that there are instances when > open channels might still need the host info around on their delete. > This seems to be the case I have found... > > Anyone else ever see this or know of any problems with > reversing these two calls? > > Thanks > Jeff > > --
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 17:16:36 UTC