Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
> On 11/03/2016 11:42 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>>> Add a test that proves (at least when run under valgrind) that
>>> we are correctly handling allocated memory even when a visit
>>> is aborted in the middle for whatever other reason.
>>>
>>> See commit f24582d "qapi: fix double free in
>>> qmp_output_visitor_cleanup()" for a fix that was lacking
>>> testsuite exposure prior to this patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Eric Blake <ebl...@redhat.com>
>
>>> +static void test_visitor_out_partial_visit(TestOutputVisitorData *data,
>>> + const void *unused)
>>> +{
>>> + /* Various checks that a mid-visit abort doesn't leak or double-free.
>>> */
>>> + const char *str = "hi";
>>> + Error *err = NULL;
>>> + UserDefAlternate uda = { .type = QTYPE_QDICT,
>>> + .u.udfu = { .integer = 1,
>>> + .string = (char *) "bye",
>>> + .enum1 = -1 } };
>
> ^ Not a valid enum value...
Now I see.
>>> +
>>> + /* Abort in the middle of an alternate. Alternates can't be
>>> + * virtually visited, so we get to inline the first half of
>>> + * visit_type_UserDefAlternate(). */
>>> + visit_start_alternate(data->ov, NULL, (GenericAlternate **)&obj,
>>> + sizeof(uda), false, &error_abort);
>>> + visit_start_struct(data->ov, NULL, NULL, 0, &error_abort);
>>> + visit_type_UserDefUnionBase_members(data->ov,
>>> + (UserDefUnionBase *)&uda.u.udfu,
>>> + &err);
>>> + error_free_or_abort(&err);
>>
>> Why does this fail?
>
> ...so visiting the UnionBase_members gripes loudly. But I see your
> point that more comments would be helpful.
Would you like to suggest a fixup for me to squash in on commit?
