Re: [PATCH 3/4] unpack-trees: plug a memory leak

> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Before overwriting the destination index, first let's discard it's
>>> contents.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
>>> ---
>>>  unpack-trees.c | 4 +++-
>>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
>>> index ede4299..eff2944 100644
>>> --- a/unpack-trees.c
>>> +++ b/unpack-trees.c
>>> @@ -1146,8 +1146,10 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options
>>>
>>>       o->src_index = NULL;
>>>       ret = check_updates(o) ? (-2) : 0;
>>> -     if (o->dst_index)
>>> +     if (o->dst_index) {
>>> +             discard_index(o->dst_index);
>>>               *o->dst_index = o->result;
>>> +     }
>>
>> I seem to recall that many callers set src_index and dst_index to
>> the same istate, and expect that the original istate pointed by the
>> src_index to remain usable.  Is it safe to discard it like this at
>> this point?
>
> Who expects that?