Re: readlink, getcwd memory leaks

[Marius Vollmer]

Rob Browning <address@hidden> writes:

>> Sounds good to me. Let's make it official policy and modify
>> scm_memory_error to abort. (scm_gethostname could then be simplified
>> again...)
>
> That would preclude any kind of "release and retry" catch handler.  Do
> we care about that?  (I'm not saying we do, just wondering.)

Yes, just aborting is maybe a bit inflexible.  (I think we have
discussed this previously.)  We could allow the registration of
handlers (written in C) for out-of-memory and the default handler
could print a warning, wait a bit, and then retry, backing off
exponentially.  Or something.

-- 
GPG: D5D4E405 - 2F9B BCCC 8527 692A 04E3  331E FAF8 226A D5D4 E405