On Mon, Mar 18, 2024 at 09:56:35 +0100, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On 3/18/24 09:37, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 18:08:49 +0100, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> > > Technically commit 2ecdf259299813c2c674377e22a0acbce5ccbbb2 does not
> > > really introduces a leak, but it is incorrect
Technically commit 2ecdf259299813c2c674377e22a0acbce5ccbbb2 does not
really introduces a leak, but it is incorrect ideologically. Neither
function accepting non-const pointer to virDomainDef does not
provide any warrantee that the object will not be improved inside.
Thus, keeping object model in
On 3/18/24 09:37, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 18:08:49 +0100, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
Technically commit 2ecdf259299813c2c674377e22a0acbce5ccbbb2 does not
really introduces a leak, but it is incorrect ideologically. Neither
function accepting non-const pointer to virDomainDef does
On Sun, Mar 17, 2024 at 18:08:49 +0100, Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> Technically commit 2ecdf259299813c2c674377e22a0acbce5ccbbb2 does not
> really introduces a leak, but it is incorrect ideologically. Neither
> function accepting non-const pointer to virDomainDef does not
> provide any warrantee that
