From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 21:48:09 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pkt-line: re-'static'-ify buffer in packet_write_fmt_1()
Message-ID: <20170829214809.xxpsp76eqhd4hupo@sigill.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAN0heSomjqiSStq3eqGgCe21b0Pr0gbAQLL-2EEB6Zfnjj+Mjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:

> One take-away for me from this thread is that memory-leak-plugging seems
> to be appreciated, i.e., it's not just an academic problem. I think I'll
> look into it some more, i.e., slowly pursue option 2. :-) That might help
> give some insights on how to identify interesting leaks.

Yes, I think if it's tractable that's the best path forward. It's not
clear to me how many of the things valgrind reports are false positives
(and in what way). Certainly the lock_file patch I just posted seems
like something worth addressing, even if we _tend_ to only leak a small
number of such structs per program invocation. It's not a problem now,
but it's a sign of a bad pattern.

-Peff