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

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

To: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>
Subject: Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
From: kunkee@neosoft.com (Randy Kunkee)
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 13:54:06 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: Randy Kunkee <kunkee@neosoft.com>, Steve Sonntag <VTAG@novell.com>, openldap-bugs@OpenLDAP.org, bcroq@virtual-net.fr
In-reply-to: <5.0.0.25.0.20001004113248.00a3ceb0@router.boolean.net> from "Kurt D. Zeilenga" at "Oct 4, 2000 11:34:02 am"

Ugh.  I need a porting guide.

> 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.
> 
>

References:
- Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
  - From: "Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>

Prev by Date: Re: Memory leak with ldap_first_attribute()/ldap_next_attribute()?
Next by Date: Re: Problem chasing multiple referrals (ITS#799)
Index(es):
- Chronological
- Thread