Talk:Memory debugger
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Cleanup
[edit]I put a cleanup tag on the article because there really is no article at all, just a short explanation and a list. --Dr. WTF 00:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the tag because what is there is clean, even though it needs expansion and possibly a rename to list of memory debuggers. (also it's been over 5 years.) RJFJR (talk) 14:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Static tools
[edit]It seems extremely odd to have static analyzers on this list of memory debuggers. If you look at the definition, static tools don't really apply - these are runtime tools that analyze actual memory use. Probably the static ones should be removed. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 14:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
As defined in the article, "A memory debugger is a programming tool for finding memory leaks and buffer overflows". So any tool that can detect memory leak or buffer overflow, either statically (compile time) or run-time is included. That's my understanding. --Buhadram (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
- The 'debugger' part of it is where the tool actually connects to the running program - that's how memory debuggers are different than static analyzers, even though static tools can find some instances of memory problems. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Possible refs
[edit]Here's a couple of possible refs I haven't had a chance to check in-depth yet but I suspect will help this article.
- http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5386906/
- Jonathan B. Rosenberg, How Debuggers Work: Algorithms, Data Structures, and Architecture, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 0-471-14966-7
- http://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10014567294/
I'll try and check them out when I have a bit more time. CodeCurmudgeon (talk) 16:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
"runtime debugger"
[edit]I'm removing the claim in the first sentence that a memory debugger is also known as a runtime debugger. I wouldn't post on a Talk page about a correction of an obvious error except that it's got a citation and shouldn't. The citation is to a humorous article unrelated to memory debuggers. Below the article on the cited page, there's an advertisement for a runtime debugger that mentions memory debugging in the first bullet points in the ad. This, then, is a factual error with a bad citation. On Sober Reflection (talk) 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)