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.      > 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