Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's a known issue according to what I've read. It's never been fixed. This may be due to the fact that it's hard to trigger and reproduce.



Can you link to some of the things you've read? What exactly is the "known issue"?


From the documentation (linked by arunc above)[0] "Notes about deallocation. This allocator does not explicitly release memory. Because of this, memory debugging programs like valgrind or purify may notice leaks: sorry about this inconvenience. Operating systems will reclaim allocated memory at program termination anyway. If sidestepping this kind of noise is desired, there are three options: use an allocator, like new_allocator that releases memory while debugging, use GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW to bypass the allocator's internal pools, or use a custom pool datum that releases resources on destruction."

[0]https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/mt_allocator...


That doesn't explain the «Some allocations were much larger than anything ZeroTier should need.» part.


Yes it does. The secondary C++ allocator is doing its own pooling on top of the primary allocator.


It's not a known issue, but GLIBCPP_FORCE_NEW has had no effect on libstdc++ code for more than a decade, so I wonder which prehistoric version you're using. Even the modern GLIBCXX_FORCE_NEW doesn't do anything for the default std::allocator implementation, which always uses new/delete unconditionally (since 2005).


Is there an open bug report? I have read the docs which specifically say "we don't care about leaked memory", but the brokenness being documented is different from it being a "known issue".

And, to be blunt, "it's never been fixed" should be written as "it's not been fixed yet" -- because you have an opportunity to fix it. That's how free software works after all.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: