Debugging memory leaks

[fmassei]

Hello!
I made a short piece of code that I find very useful for debugging,
and I wanted to ask you if it is correct, somehow acceptable or if I
simply reinvented the wheel.
To deal with some bad bugs caused by memory leaks I ended up with this
simple solution: I made one header file that, when included, replaces
the malloc/calloc/realloc/free functions with some other functions
that do the actual job and insert (or remove) the pointers to the
allocated memory in a list. This way I can catch many errors as double
frees, allocations of zero size, or missing calls to free.
Obviously it works only when a given #define is set (NDEBUG, in my
case).
What do you think about it?
Thank you in advance!
(If you want to see the code I wrote a little page here:
http://technicalinsanity.org/out/simplegc/index.html)

[lawrence.jones]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John
Maynard Keynes.

Most people base their facts on their opinions, rather than the other
way around as logic would suggest. :-)
--
Larry Jones

It's no fun to play games with a poor sport. -- Calvin

[lawrence.jones]

CBFalconer <cb********@yah oo.comwrote:

>
Which word does not apply to any such C language inclusion. There
is still no mention of threads in the proposed draft of the next
system, and even if it was present it should be shouted down. C
operates in a simple environment, especially in embedded systems,
and nothing that bars that should be proposed.

The current draft is the *very first* draft and contains very little new
material. I can almost guarantee that threads will be prominently
mentioned before the process is complete. Threads and C have been
tightly linked for quite some time: OS kernels, device drivers, and
especially embedded systems are all frequently written in C and
frequently have to deal with multiple threads. Even the current C
standard alludes to threads in the guise of signal handlers. I don't
expect threads to be required, but they need to be discussed so that
people know how to write code that will run reliably when they are
present.
--
Larry Jones

What this games needs are negotiated settlements. -- Calvin

[Martin Ambuhl]

la************@ siemens.com wrote:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.in validwrote:

>"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John
Maynard Keynes.

Most people base their facts on their opinions, rather than the other
way around as logic would suggest. :-)

As much as we might like it to be otherwise, uninterpreted facts are
rarely a sufficient foundation for an opinion. We may strive to make
our 'opinions' (itself a loaded word used to discredit others' thoughts)
conform to an incontestable external reality, but we know it is
ultimately an impossible task.

[user923005]

On Oct 17, 11:33*am, lawrence.jo...@ siemens.com wrote:

Richard Heathfield <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" - John
Maynard Keynes.

Most people base their facts on their opinions, rather than the other
way around as logic would suggest. *:-)

I am reminded of this:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/