Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by Dewie on Tuesday March 17, 2015 @03:41PM
(#9220739)
According to that definition of memory leak, I guess you can call anything that doesn't eagerly free memory for memory leak. And the term gets quite weak and vague in that case.
Re:Would Rust have prevented Heartbleed? Another look
by osn on Wednesday March 18, 2015 @05:13AM
(#9224337)
The issue with this code is not that it isn't eager enough. It deoesn't free the memory ever (for value of ever "till the whole stack is not freed, that can be the whole runtime of the program").
So far so good. But You forget to allocate smaller array (and copy members) when you consume too much memory. So 1000000* push(something) followed by 1000000*pop() keeps plenty allocated memory not in usage.
(It's not as brutal as malloc() and forget the result but still pretty awfull situation in a large project.)