Re: [RFD PATCH 0/3] Free all the memory!

From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Date: May 17, 2016, 18:20 UTC
Message-ID: <CAGZ79kaawUGOtxcFPEdx+tSn60Zzv=jLAMU-BnS6GGp_1wBWWg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqinycwnx2.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 12 quoted lines

> Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> writes:
>
>> So as a developer I wish we would close all leaks that are non-concerning.
>
> Valgrind suppression (and if you use other tools, suppression for
> them) sounds like the way to go, I would think.
>
> Reducing false positive is a good goal; it helps to highlight the
> real problems.  But we need to find a way to do so without hurting
> the use by the end users by making them pay the unnecessary cost to
> free() at the end and by cluttering the code with #ifdefs that makes
> it easier to introduce subtle bugs.

That's why I think the `optional_free` is a good thing as it doesn't clutter the code?

Show 14 quoted lines

>
>> David writes:
>>> AFAIK, nothing in the "definitely lost" category is fixed by your rev-parse patch.
>>>
>>> I don't think we care that much about "still reachable" memory -- I only care about lost memory.  I could imagine, I guess, something that happens to save a pointer to a bunch of memory that should be freed, but I don't think that's the common case.
>>
>> As said above I'd want them to be fixed for me as a developer for
>> better automated tooling and detection. (The alternative to fix the automated
>> tooling is a no-no for me ;)
>
> Does the word "no-no" mean what you seem to think it means?  It
> sounds as if you are saying "fixing tools to reduce false positives
> is fundamentally wrong, I refuse to go in that direction".
>

I just mean, that I have not enough time to do that, so I won't. I know however how to send patches to this list.