- Remove local types and function from header file
- Reduce OpenFiles_Data to neccessary size
- Print file access mode (r/w/u)
- Fix memory leak on consecutive items without an intermediate file item:
==15257==ERROR: LeakSanitizer: detected memory leaks
Direct leak of 120 byte(s) in 12 object(s) allocated from:
#0 0x48c864 in strdup (htop/htop+0x48c864)
#1 0x542f68 in xStrdup htop/XAlloc.c:71:17
#2 0x50e225 in OpenFilesScreen_getProcessData htop/OpenFilesScreen.c:112:25
#3 0x50cd17 in OpenFilesScreen_scan htop/OpenFilesScreen.c:141:35
#4 0x4fd3eb in InfoScreen_run htop/InfoScreen.c:81:35
#5 0x4d58bb in actionLsof htop/Action.c:361:4
#6 0x501766 in MainPanel_eventHandler htop/MainPanel.c:80:19
#7 0x5289fa in ScreenManager_run htop/ScreenManager.c:227:19
#8 0x4f748e in main htop/htop.c:300:4
#9 0x7ff73e0d8cc9 in __libc_start_main csu/../csu/libc-start.c:308:16
SUMMARY: AddressSanitizer: 120 byte(s) leaked in 12 allocation(s).
Doing a quick check with callgrind this gives
an average reduction from 1804 cycles/call
down to 491 cycles/call on my test system.
The average was taken over about 40k calls.
Add a date meter and sort header and source files in Makefile
Change the lists of header and source files sorted alphabetical and one
file per line. This way diffs become better readable and merges easier.
Use NDEBUG conditional instead of DEBUG.
Do not call static functions in extern inline ones.
Vector.c:67:11: error: static function 'Vector_isConsistent' is used in an inline function with external linkage [-Werror,-Wstatic-in-inline]
- do not reverse CPU steal and guest in monochrome
- black on black in Light Terminal is not visible, use blue on black
- white on blue in Light Terminal is display as blue on black, use
yellow on black
- re-draw FunctionBar after color change
When building on a 32-bit system, the compiler warned that the
following line uses a constant whose value is the overflow result
of a compile-time computation:
Process.c (line 109): } else if (number < 10000 * ONE_M) {
Namely, this constant expression:
10000 * ONE_M
was intended to produce the following value:
10485760000
However, the result overflowed to produce:
1895825408
The reason for this overflow is as follows:
o The macros are expanded:
10000 * (ONE_K * ONE_K)
10000 * (1024L * 1024L)
o The untyped constant expression "10000" is typed:
10000U * (1024L * 1024L)
o The parenthesized expression is evaluated:
10000U * (1048576L)
o The left operand ("10000U") is converted:
10000L * (1048576L)
Unbound by integer sizes, that last multiplication
would produce the following value:
10485760000
However, on a 32-bit machine, where a long is 32 bits
(really 31 bits when talking about positive numbers),
the maximum value that can be computed is 2**31-1:
2147483647
Consequently, the computation overflows.
o The compiler produces a long int value that is the
the result of overflow (10485760000 % 2**31):
1895825408L
Actually, I think this overflow is implementation-defined,
so it's not even a portable description of what happens.
The solution is to use a long long int (or, even better,
an unsigned long long int) type for the constant expression;
the C standard mandates a sufficiently large maximum value
for such types.
Hence, the following change is made to the bad line:
- } else if (number < 10000 * ONE_M) {
+ } else if (number < 10000ULL * ONE_M) {
However, the whole line is now patently silly, because the
variable "number" is typed "unsigned long", and so it will
always be less than the constant expression (the compiler
will warn about this, too).
Hence, "number" must be typed "unsigned long long"; however,
this necessitates changing all of the string formats from
something like "%lu" to something like "%llu".
Et voila! This commit is born.
Then, for the sake of completeness, the declared types of the
constant-expression macros are updated:
o ONE_K is made unsigned (a "UL" instead of "L")
o ONE_T is computed by introducing "1ULL *"
o Similar changes are made for ONE_DECIMAL_{K,T}
Also, a non-portable overflow-conversion to a signed value
has been replaced with a portable comparison:
- if ((long long) number == -1LL) {
+ if (number == ULLONG_MAX) {
It might be worth reviewing the rest of the code for other
cases where overflows are not handled correctly; even at
runtime, it's often necessary to check for overflow unless
such behavior is expected (especially for signed integer
values, for which overflow has implementation-defined
behavior).
Christian Göttsche