Pádraig Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> According to Jim Meyering on 3/25/2008 3:47 PM: >>> | - user_name = pwd ? pwd->pw_name : NULL; >>> | + user_name = pwd ? xstrdup (pwd->pw_name) : NULL; >>> >>> Doesn't this leak memory? >> >> Thanks for mentioning it, but I think of this as a pseudo leak, >> since that allocated storage is still reachable at exit: >> >> $ valgrind --leak-check=full --show-reachable=yes ./id -G >> ... >> ==18858== 9 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 1 of 4 >> ==18858== at 0x4C20FAB: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:207) >> ==18858== by 0x403D49: xstrdup (in /f/w/cu/src/id) >> ==18858== by 0x40198E: main (id.c:214) >> ... >> >> IMHO, it's best not even to try to free such memory, >> unless the total amount can become large enough to interfere >> with regular operation. > > It's easier to use the tools though without this "noise". > For my own programs I often change main to run in an > infinite loop (with suitable ulimit) to check leaks.
It's a trade-off. I admit that if it'd been trivial I would have freed that memory. However, when I look for leaks, I routinely ignore such reachable-memory "leaks." If freeing that single user name string were to impose the _slightest_ bit of unnecessary work or a decrease in readability, then it's not worthwhile, in my opinion. If you can free it cleanly, who knows... _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
