From: René Scharfe <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx>
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2013 15:56:04 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] read-cache: plug a few leaks
Message-ID: <51B35414.1090101@lsrfire.ath.cx>
In-Reply-To: <CAMP44s3K=VtkeCoKqnU9To9YbfO7vph9MsMWtgLWw0n=cYyq5g@mail.gmail.com>

Am 08.06.2013 16:04, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
> On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 8:22 AM, René Scharfe
> <rene.scharfe@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>> Am 08.06.2013 14:15, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>
>>> Why leave it out? If somebody makes the mistake of doing the above
>>> sequence, would you prefer that we leak?
>>
>> Leaking is better than silently cleaning up after a buggy caller because it
>> still allows the underlying bug to be found.
>
> No, it doesn't. The pointer is replaced and forever lost. How is
> leaking memory helping anyone to find the bug?

Valgrind can tell you where leaked memory was allocated, but not if you 
free it in the "wrong" place.

René