|[3 earlier articles]|
|Re: gawk memory leak firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-04-06)|
|Re: gawk memory leak pfoxSPAMOFF@lehman.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-04-13)|
|Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) email@example.com (Elan Feingold) (1997-05-04)|
|Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) firstname.lastname@example.org (Sailesh Krishnamurthy) (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) email@example.com (1997-05-08)|
|Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) firstname.lastname@example.org (Duncan Smith) (1997-05-09)|
|Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) email@example.com (Paul David Fox) (1997-05-13)|
|Re: Purify patent (was Re: gawk memory leak) firstname.lastname@example.org (Hans-Juergen Boehm) (1997-05-17)|
|Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis email@example.com (Christian Fabre) (1997-05-22)|
|Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis firstname.lastname@example.org (1997-05-25)|
|Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis Jacques.Noye@emn.fr (1997-05-25)|
|Re: Partial evaluation vs flow-graph analysis email@example.com (Tommy Thorn) (1997-05-27)|
|From:||Paul David Fox <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|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|
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 <email@example.com> 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
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 |
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.