Arup Chauhan
Arup Chauhan
@jameslamb, I would like to contribute to this issue, or any related good first issue (as there are multiple mentioned), here in the repository
Hi @jameslamb , thanks for this, I will get started, will reach out to you if I need assistance
@aishikanandi please review
Hi, I am interested in working on this issue, please assign it to me.
I wrote a small test program to investigate the memory leak: ```cpp #include #include #include void at_thread_exit_func() { int* simulated_leak = (int*) malloc(sizeof(int) * 100); } void thread_func() { at_thread_exit_func();...
Hi @AlexGuteniev, Thank you for your feedback. Based on your suggestion, I have adjusted the approach and used the actual `at_thread_exit` machinery in `xnotify.cpp` rather than simulating similar leaks. Below...
> No, you should test the original unaltered `atexit` machinery, instead of repeating that code in a test, and also should not alter its code yet. Hey @AlexGuteniev, thanks for...
Thanks @AlexGuteniev Alex, I will work on this and get back, once again, thank you for all the help!
Hi @AlexGuteniev, hope you are well, thank you for your patience on this one I tested the scenarios involving `std::notify_all_at_thread_exit`, `std::promise::set_value_at_thread_exit`, and `std::promise::set_exception_at_thread_exit` as outlined. Here is my code implementation:...
Hi @AlexGuteniev since it is an undefined behaviour and I can see you raised a PR for it, should I wait until this PR work is done? Please suggest.