From: "Martin Ågren" <martin.agren@gmail.com>
To: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Cc: Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 19:16:00 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAN0heSpYZT7cm=XNpfgcsGFa9FOR6SdaF=vXJ+M7NNaA6Mnb3g@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170905130505.him3p4jhxp64r2vy@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On 5 September 2017 at 15:05, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> 1. It can be compiled conditionally. There's no need in
> normal runs to do this free(), and it just wastes time.
> By using a macro, we can get the benefit for leak-check
> builds with zero cost for normal builds (this patch
> uses a compile-time check, though we could clearly also
> make it a run-time check at very low cost).
>
> Of course one could also hide free() behind a macro, so
> this is really just arguing for having UNLEAK(), not
> for its particular implementation.
Like Stefan, I didn't quite follow 1. until after I had read the points
below it. But it's still a very good commit message (as always).
> diff --git a/builtin/commit.c b/builtin/commit.c
> index b3b04f5dd3..de775d906c 100644
> --- a/builtin/commit.c
> +++ b/builtin/commit.c
> @@ -1819,5 +1819,6 @@ int cmd_commit(int argc, const char **argv, const char *prefix)
> print_summary(prefix, &oid, !current_head);
>
> strbuf_release(&err);
> + UNLEAK(sb);
> return 0;
> }
These are both strbufs, so this ends up being a bit inconsistent. What
would be the ideal end state for these two and all other such
structures? My guess is "always UNLEAK", as opposed to carefully judging
whether foo_release() would/could add any significant overhead.
In other words, it would be ok/wanted with changes such as "let's UNLEAK
bar, because ..., and while at it, convert the existing foo_release to
UNLEAK for consistency" (or per policy, for smaller binary, whatever).
Or "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"? Did you think about this, or was
it more a random choice?
Martin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-06 17:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-05 13:01 [PATCH 0/10] towards clean leak-checker output Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:03 ` [PATCH 01/10] test-lib: --valgrind should not override --verbose-log Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 02/10] test-lib: set LSAN_OPTIONS to abort by default Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 03/10] add: free leaked pathspec after add_files_to_cache() Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 04/10] update-index: fix cache entry leak in add_one_file() Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 05/10] config: plug user_config leak Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 06/10] reset: make tree counting less confusing Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 07/10] reset: free allocated tree buffers Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:04 ` [PATCH 08/10] repository: free fields before overwriting them Jeff King
2017-09-05 13:05 ` [PATCH 09/10] set_git_dir: handle feeding gitdir to itself Jeff King
2017-09-07 19:06 ` Brandon Williams
2017-09-05 13:05 ` [PATCH 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives Jeff King
2017-09-05 22:05 ` Stefan Beller
2017-09-07 9:17 ` Jeff King
2017-09-07 20:38 ` Stefan Beller
2017-09-12 14:34 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-12 15:05 ` Jeff King
2017-09-13 7:13 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-06 17:16 ` Martin Ågren [this message]
2017-09-07 9:00 ` Jeff King
2017-09-12 13:41 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-12 15:29 ` Jeff King
2017-09-13 6:44 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2017-09-05 17:50 ` [PATCH 0/10] towards clean leak-checker output Martin Ågren
2017-09-05 19:02 ` Jeff King
2017-09-05 20:41 ` Martin Ågren
2017-09-06 12:39 ` Jeff King
2017-09-06 1:42 ` Junio C Hamano
2017-09-06 12:28 ` [PATCH 0/2] simplifying !RUNTIME_PREFIX Jeff King
2017-09-06 12:30 ` [PATCH 1/2] system_path: move RUNTIME_PREFIX to a sub-function Jeff King
2017-09-06 13:23 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-09-06 13:27 ` Jeff King
2017-09-06 12:32 ` [PATCH 2/2] git_extract_argv0_path: do nothing without RUNTIME_PREFIX Jeff King
2017-09-08 6:38 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives Jeff King
2017-09-19 20:45 ` Jonathan Tan
2017-09-19 21:03 ` Jeff King
2017-09-19 21:34 ` [PATCH for jk/leak-checkers] git-compat-util: make UNLEAK less error-prone Jonathan Tan
2017-09-19 21:46 ` Jeff King
2017-09-19 22:10 ` [PATCH for jk/leak-checkers v2] " Jonathan Tan
2017-09-20 1:45 ` [PATCH v2 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives Junio C Hamano
2017-09-20 2:28 ` Jeff King
2017-09-20 5:12 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAN0heSpYZT7cm=XNpfgcsGFa9FOR6SdaF=vXJ+M7NNaA6Mnb3g@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=martin.agren@gmail.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peff@peff.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).