Chromium Code Reviews
chromiumcodereview-hr@appspot.gserviceaccount.com (chromiumcodereview-hr) | Please choose your nickname with Settings | Help | Chromium Project | Gerrit Changes | Sign out
(30)

Issue 13331: Add a call to MemoryDebug::MarkAsInitialized to the new network code to avoid... (Closed)

Created:
12 years ago by Pam (message me for reviews)
Modified:
9 years, 5 months ago
CC:
chromium-reviews_googlegroups.com
Visibility:
Public.

Description

Add a call to MemoryDebug::MarkAsInitialized to the new network code to avoid false UMR reports from Purify due to asynchronous filling of memory from the socket. BUG=5297 TEST=run test_shell.exe http://localhost:8080/multipart/invalid-image-data-standalone.html in Purify, see no UMRs in net code. Or watch the layout-test Purify buildbot running http/tests/invalid-image-data{-standalone}.html Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=7028

Patch Set 1 #

Patch Set 2 : '' #

Total comments: 1
Unified diffs Side-by-side diffs Delta from patch set Stats (+9 lines, -0 lines) Patch
M net/base/tcp_client_socket_win.cc View 2 chunks +9 lines, -0 lines 1 comment Download

Messages

Total messages: 3 (0 generated)
Pam (message me for reviews)
12 years ago (2008-12-10 02:29:30 UTC) #1
darin (slow to review)
LGTM http://codereview.chromium.org/13331/diff/202/203 File net/base/tcp_client_socket_win.cc (right): http://codereview.chromium.org/13331/diff/202/203#newcode185 Line 185: // See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=5297 Can we use a ...
12 years ago (2008-12-10 17:33:29 UTC) #2
Pam (message me for reviews)
12 years ago (2008-12-10 21:37:50 UTC) #3
On 2008/12/10 17:33:29, darin wrote:
> LGTM
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/13331/diff/202/203
> File net/base/tcp_client_socket_win.cc (right):
> 
> http://codereview.chromium.org/13331/diff/202/203#newcode185
> Line 185: // See http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=5297
> Can we use a more abbreviated way of referring to DIT issues?  How about
> http://crbug.com/5297 or just bug 5297 since we have b/12345678 for buganizer
> references?

My understanding is that we're not supposed to be using crbug.com as the
"canonical URL" for bug links.  See Ian's email of November 25.  I'm fine with
"bug 5297", although it's more work to get there than clicking on a link would
be.

- Pam

Powered by Google App Engine
This is Rietveld 408576698