[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?

To: kunkee@neosoft.com (Randy Kunkee)
Subject: Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2000 11:34:02 -0700
Cc: Steve Sonntag <VTAG@novell.com>, openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org, bcroq@virtual-net.fr
In-reply-to: <200010041816.NAA62504@starbase.neosoft.com>
References: <s9db1340.097@prv-mail20.provo.novell.com>

At 01:16 PM 10/4/00 -0500, Randy Kunkee wrote:
>> You need to do a ldap_memfree on each attribute returned by
>> ldap_first_attribute or ldap_next_attribute
>> 
>> -Steve
>
>No, no, this is wrong.

Wrong for RFC 1823 and OpenLDAP 1.x.
Right for latest IETF LDAP C API draft and OpenLDAP 2.x.

Note that the section(3) manual pages have yet to be updated.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
  - From: kunkee@neosoft.com (Randy Kunkee)
- Re: Memory leak withldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
  - From: Bertrand Croq <bcroq@virtual-net.fr>

References:
- Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
  - From: "Steve Sonntag" <VTAG@novell.com>
- Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
  - From: kunkee@neosoft.com (Randy Kunkee)

Prev by Date: Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
Next by Date: Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread