From: Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 14:33:57 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 69/83] builtin/apply: make add_conflicted_stages_file() return -1 on error
Message-ID: <CAP8UFD3F+hXxypz+tw8fRBNS5fWwkaV71GmzDkNBUTZbJt2ENQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cRBgj29ugY0qYS9eB09CDKcJXeBKg3KqPaoZFSzCwftZw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, May 2, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Christian Couder
> <christian.couder@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
>> ---
>> diff --git a/builtin/apply.c b/builtin/apply.c
>> @@ -4234,8 +4234,11 @@ static void add_conflicted_stages_file(struct apply_state *state,
>>                 ce->ce_namelen = namelen;
>>                 hashcpy(ce->sha1, patch->threeway_stage[stage - 1].hash);
>>                 if (add_cache_entry(ce, ADD_CACHE_OK_TO_ADD) < 0)
>> -                       die(_("unable to add cache entry for %s"), patch->new_name);
>> +                       return error(_("unable to add cache entry for %s"),
>> +                                    patch->new_name);
>
> Is this leaking 'ce' (which is allocated a few lines above the shown context)?

Yes, thanks.