On Sun, Mar 8, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Charlie Savage <cfis / savagexi.com> wrote: >> This works until you start linking third-party upstream source that >> breaks these rules. If I were to make RbFoo that wraps libfoo, and >> libfoo allocates memory through a method call, but doesn't provide an >> explicit "free" mechanism, you're asking for trouble, and unless you >> patch the upstream library, you won't have a fix. > Yes, that could happen. ¨Âõô ôèáô ÷ïõìáææåãô îïïîìù Òõâùâõ> potentially any program on Windows that uses the library. > > Anyway, do you have any concrete examples? Current ones? Not offhand. Simply experience from trying to push Ruby on Windows to be built with VS2005/VC8 instead of VC6 or mingw. I recall seeing some libraries that I wanted to port to VC8 that allocated memory on calls but didn't have a library-specific free implementation. These things don't actually matter on most Unix systems as there's only ever one C runtime, but I ended up giving up on it because the task of maintaining third-party ports was too large (pdcurses was one, I think, but I could be mistaken) and uninteresting to me. -austin -- Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/ * austin / halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/ * austin / zieglers.ca