On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 09:22:31AM -0600, Jeff Law wrote:
> >>> From d255827a64012fb81937d6baa8534eabecf9b735 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Sylvestre Ledru<sylves...@debian.org>
> >>> Date: Sun, 14 May 2017 11:37:37 +0200
> >>> Subject: [PATCH 5/5] 2017-05-14 Sylvestre Ledru<sylves...@debian.org>
> >>>
> >>> * lto-wrapper.c (copy_file): Fix resource leaks
> >>> CID 1407987, 1407986
> >> Doesn't this still leak in the cases were we call fatal_error?
> >
> > fatal_error is a noreturn function, why should we bother to do any cleanups
> > after it? All that code is going to be optimized away anyway.
> But cleaning this kind of thing up does help static analyzers and such.
> ISTM that we'd need a compelling reason _not_ to accept this kind of patch.
Are the static analyzers so dumb to report something like that?
Unless we have a proof that they are, I think the original short patch is
the way to go, rather than the much more complicated later patch.
Jakub
