Nikita Belov writes:
> Variable 'ram_lo' is allocated unconditionally, but used only in some cases.
> When it is unused pointer will be lost at function exit, resulting in a
> memory leak. Free memory in this case.
>
> Valgrind output:
> ==16879== 240 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss
> On 20 November 2014 11:53, Kirill Batuzov wrote:
> > I'm surprised that this small patch caused so much controversy. It seems
> > very simple and straightforward to me.
> >
> > This patch fixes a memory leak. The fact that it indeed was a memory
> > leak is indicated by Valgrind output (Memcheck
On 20 November 2014 11:53, Kirill Batuzov wrote:
> I'm surprised that this small patch caused so much controversy. It seems
> very simple and straightforward to me.
>
> This patch fixes a memory leak. The fact that it indeed was a memory
> leak is indicated by Valgrind output (Memcheck's false-pos
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014, Peter Maydell wrote:
>
> Not for 2.2,
Fair enough.
> and I'm still not really convinced in
> general that it's worthwhile at all.
>
I'm surprised that this small patch caused so much controversy. It seems
very simple and straightforward to me.
This patch fixes a memory lea
On 19 November 2014 15:05, Nikita Belov wrote:
> ping
Not for 2.2, and I'm still not really convinced in
general that it's worthwhile at all.
thanks
-- PMM
On 2014-10-29 17:03, Nikita Belov wrote:
Variable 'ram_lo' is allocated unconditionally, but used only in some
cases.
When it is unused pointer will be lost at function exit, resulting in
a
memory leak. Free memory in this case.
Valgrind output:
==16879== 240 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely l
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 31 October 2014 10:42, Nikita Belov wrote:
> > On 2014-10-29 19:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> We leak all of the MemoryRegions we allocate here, because we
> >> don't have a persistent state struct to keep them in. This
> >> doesn't really matter muc
On 2014-10-29 19:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 29 October 2014 14:03, Nikita Belov wrote:
Variable 'ram_lo' is allocated unconditionally, but used only in some
cases.
When it is unused pointer will be lost at function exit, resulting in
a
memory leak. Free memory in this case.
Valgrind output:
On 31 October 2014 10:42, Nikita Belov wrote:
> On 2014-10-29 19:03, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> We leak all of the MemoryRegions we allocate here, because we
>> don't have a persistent state struct to keep them in. This
>> doesn't really matter much because they're generally needed
>> for the lifetim
Variable 'ram_lo' is allocated unconditionally, but used only in some cases.
When it is unused pointer will be lost at function exit, resulting in a
memory leak. Free memory in this case.
Valgrind output:
==16879== 240 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 6,033 of
7,018
==16879==
On 29 October 2014 14:03, Nikita Belov wrote:
> Variable 'ram_lo' is allocated unconditionally, but used only in some cases.
> When it is unused pointer will be lost at function exit, resulting in a
> memory leak. Free memory in this case.
>
> Valgrind output:
> ==16879== 240 bytes in 1 blocks are
11 matches
Mail list logo
