On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 11:13, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Pranit Bauva wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Martin Ågren <martin.ag...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On 27 October 2017 at 17:06, Pranit Bauva <pranit.ba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> +static void free_terms(struct bisect_terms *terms)
> > >> +{
> > >> + if (!terms->term_good)
> > >> + free((void *) terms->term_good);
> > >> + if (!terms->term_bad)
> > >> + free((void *) terms->term_bad);
> > >> +}
> > > You leave the pointers dangling, but you're ok for now since this is the
> > > last thing that happens in `cmd_bisect__helper()`. Your later patches
> > > add more users, but they're also ok, since they immediately assign new
> > > values.
> > >
> > > In case you (and others) find it useful, the below is a patch I've been
> > > sitting on for a while as part of a series to plug various memory-leaks.
> > > `FREE_AND_NULL_CONST()` would be useful in precisely these situations.
> >
> > Honestly, I wouldn't be the best person to judge this.
>
> Git's source code implicitly assumes that any `const` pointer refers to
> memory owned by another code path. It is therefore probably not a good
> idea to encourage `free()`ing a `const` pointer.
Yeah, I never submitted that patch as part of a real series. I remember
having a funky feeling about it, and whatever use-case I had for this
macro, I managed to solve the memory leak in some other way in a
rewrite.
Thanks for a sanity check.
Martin
