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) |
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 |
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.