Oh, certainly. It was only meant to show the leak and not as a model for portable unit testing. The leak only occurs on systems that have HAVE_MMAP defined, and is really just a basic arithmetic counting oversight. I can't imagine requiring a unit test for it, but it is your home turf. You set the rules.
> This is a good program for _demonstrating_ the leak and seeing that > it's gone. It's not exactly an approach something you can build a > unit test around, though -- at least, not in a portable way. (Relying > on lsof to see if the thing really got munmapped is a fine thing to do > in an experiment, but not a great thing for the unit tests.) > > I think that right now, the best approach is probably to merge the > obvious patch and move on. Anybody feeling like writing that up as in > "git format-patch" format (or as a branch I can merge somewhere), or > should I stick it on my queue? > > yrs, > -- > Nick > *********************************************************************** > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to [email protected] with > unsubscribe libevent-users in the body. >
