Hi, On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 19:27 -0700, Jordan Rose wrote: > [+Anna, Anton] This does seem very much like a new allocation family. > Do we have a policy on how we're going to handle these in general, > though? The MacOSKeychainAPIChecker also handles allocation-like > tracking, as does SimpleStreamChecker. What does everyone think we > should do?
> My personal opinion (though without thinking too long) is that > aggregating new allocators under MallocChecker is the right thing to > do for now—i.e. we should take this patch. We may even want to come up > with a way to make this nicely extensible/configurable in the future. > But there are a lot of APIs that work this way, so... > (We can keep SimpleStreamChecker distinct even if we fold fopen/fclose > under MallocChecker, since it's still a good example of how the > analyzer works.) > Jordan Ping. What is the next step for this patch, is more work needed? Is there something that I should do? > > > On Aug 26, 2014, at 8:45 , Daniel Fahlgren <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > The MallocChecker does currently not track the memory allocated by > > if_nameindex. That memory is dynamically allocated and should be > > freed > > by calling if_freenameindex. The attached patch teaches the checker > > about these functions. > > > > Memory allocated by if_nameindex is treated as a separate allocation > > "family". That way the checker can verify it is freed by the correct > > function. > > > > Any comments / feedback? > > Cheers, Daniel Fahlgren _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
