Re: To "const char *" and cast on free(), or "char *" and no cast...
- From
- Phillip Wood <phillip.wood123@gmail.com>
- Date
- Oct 15, 2021, 09:50 UTC
- Message-ID
- <00c06d4c-7e8a-2306-7278-3bc73e4cbc44@gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <87mtnbfk0g.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com>
Hi Ævar
On 14/10/2021 20:54, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
Show 36 quoted lines
> > On Thu, Oct 14 2021, Phillip Wood wrote: > > [Changed $subject] > >> On 14/10/2021 01:10, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: >>> The "checkout" command is one of the main sources of leaks in the test >>> suite, let's fix the common ones by not leaking from the "struct >>> branch_info". >>> Doing this is rather straightforward, albeit verbose, we need to >>> xstrdup() constant strings going into the struct, and free() the ones >>> we clobber as we go along. >> >> It's great to see these leaks being fixed. I wonder though if it would >> be better to change the structure definition so that 'name' and 'path' >> are no longer 'const'. That would be a better reflection of the new >> regime.[...] > > I think this is the right thing to do, but I'm not quite sure. There was > a thread at it here: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/YUZG0D5ayEWd7MLP@carlos-mbp.lan/ > > Where I chimed in and suggested exactly what you're saying here, but the > consensus seemed to go the other way, and if you grep: > > git grep -F 'free((char *)' > > You can see that we use this pattern pretty widely. > >> It would also mean we could lose all the casts when freeing >> and there would be a compiler warning if a string literal is assigned >> to one of those fields. > > What compiler/set of warnings gives you a warning when you do that? I > don't get warned on e.g.:
Oh, I think I was thinking of -Wwrite-strings but we don't have that warning on and turning it on causes a bunch of -Wdiscarded-qualifier warnings.
Best Wishes
Phillip
Show 20 quoted lines
> diff --git a/builtin/checkout.c b/builtin/checkout.c
> index a32af16d5e4..d7053579bdf 100644
> --- a/builtin/checkout.c
> +++ b/builtin/checkout.c
> @@ -94 +94 @@ struct branch_info {
> - const char *name; /* The short name used */
> + char *name; /* The short name used */
> @@ -110 +110 @@ static void branch_info_release(struct branch_info *info)
> - free((char *)info->name);
> + free(info->name);
> @@ -1107 +1107 @@ static int switch_branches(const struct checkout_opts *opts,
> - new_branch_info->name = xstrdup("(empty)");
> + new_branch_info->name = "(empty)";
>
> Now, what is really useful is making it a "char * const", especially
> when hacking up these changes as you'll find all the assignments, but I
> haven't found the general use in having that make it to a submitted
> patch, since you need to assign somewhere, and those then need to be a
> str[n]cpy() (except we banned.h it) or memcpy() with a cast...
>