From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2011 16:51:53 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] remove prefix argument from pathspec_prefix
Message-ID: <7vmxefx9hy.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <20110908071237.GA4408@ecki>

Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at> writes:

>> > We also didn't free() in the earlier code (because we do not know if it
>> > can be freed) and leaking xmemdupz() if the function didn't return the
>> > "prefix", but now you plugged the small leak. Isn't it something you
>> > should advertise?
>> 
>> Nah, the leak is not necessarily plugged in all callers anyway, so scratch
>> that part. I've rewritten it like this:
>
> Ok.
>
> The only other caller, though, is cmd_ls_files(). And it would be
> trivial to plug that leak as well.
>
> But is it considered a leak, if the program is going to terminate
> right after the function returns?

it not a big deal to leak immediately before exit, and a patch whose sole
purpose is to plug them is of little value.

But if you are already in the vicinity, updating a function that happens
to have such a leak, the cost to decide not plugging the leak would be
about the same as plugging it, so it would be worth doing in such a case.