Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak)

Paul David Fox <pfox@lehman.com>
13 May 1997 22:44:28 -0400

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[3 earlier articles]
Re: gawk memory leak bobduff@world.std.com (1997-04-06)
Re: gawk memory leak pfoxSPAMOFF@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-04-13)
Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) elan@jeeves.net (Elan Feingold) (1997-05-04)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) krish@cs.purdue.edu (Sailesh Krishnamurthy) (1997-05-08)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) clark@quarry.zk3.dec.com (1997-05-08)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) dds@flavors.com (Duncan Smith) (1997-05-09)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) pfox@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-05-13)
Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) boehm@mti.mti.sgi.com (Hans-Juergen Boehm) (1997-05-17)
Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis fabre@gr.osf.org (Christian Fabre) (1997-05-22)
Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis mossin@diku.dk (1997-05-25)
Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis Jacques.Noye@emn.fr (1997-05-25)
Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis thorn@spamblock.lalla.irisa.fr (Tommy Thorn) (1997-05-27)
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Paul David Fox <pfox@lehman.com>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers
Date: 13 May 1997 22:44:28 -0400
Organization: None in particular
References: 97-03-165 97-04-020 97-04-022 97-04-037 97-04-070 97-05-019 97-05-090
Keywords: legal

    Paul David Fox wrote:
        >> I did some research into the Purify patent. There are
        >> actually 3 inter-related ones. I havent got the reference
        >> to hand but the substance of the patent is 'Use of object
        >> code modification to facilitate memory tracking and
        >> leakage detection'.


Elan Feingold <elan@jeeves.net> writes:
> > This surprises me, as Digital has a toolkit out there called ATOM
> > (the OM standing for "Object Modification") and it ships a client,
> > who's name escapes me at the moment, that has similar features as
> > Purify. Anyone know the scoop on this?


Sailesh Krishnamurthy wrote:
> Digital has spun off that group into Tracepoint Technologies
> (http://www.tracepoint.com) - I believe their patent is
> different. It's called "Binary Code Instrumentation" - the difference
> being you instrument a linked executable, as opposed to instrumenting
> unlinked object files as is the case with Purify.


I dont think it matters whether you instrument object code or .exe
code for this patent. Its only the two combined acts of
'instrumentation' and 'memory leak detection'. (I maybe wrong - I
cannot remember what I did read).


But note that Purify use a different mechanism depending on the
platform and the reason for this is that instrumenting a .EXE is the
ideal scenario but on some platforms the compiler generated code
cannot be instrumented (because of things like embedded switch-jump
tables in the middle of real assembler instructions).


Its quite likely DEC have enough patents of their own to avoid
a war with Purify and the things DEC are doing are not in the
same area.


Unfortunately the things DEC are doing are not as interesting
as a memory leak detector and even Purifies is semantically-challenged.


______________________________________________________________________
| Paul David Fox Lehman Brothers. |
| Consulant E-mail: NOSPAM_pfox@NOSPAM_lehman.com |
| #### Sold! ########### Home: NOSPAM_fox@NOSPAM_crisp.demon.co.uk |
| ###################### Tel: +44 171 601 0011 x6025 |
--


Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.