I happen to have a valgrind trace on my screen that shows the issue

==25160== 49 bytes in 1 blocks are still reachable in loss record 2 of 2
==25160==    at 0x4005BDC: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:195)
==25160==    by 0x314D9A: poptGetNextOpt (popt.c:1203)
==25160==    by 0x40697CD: rpmcliInit (poptALL.c:751)
==25160==    by 0x804AC45: main (rpmqv.c:385)

The "memory leak" is actually a POPT design feature. Every string
returned from POPT is malloc'd so that an application
can do whatever it wishes with the string without
worrying about side effects of fiddling with the memory.

Unfortunately, POPT is mostly not used correctly, and the expectation is
        Hey POPT handles argv strings, I shouldn't _HAVE_ to manage those!?!

I get a tedious bug report every couple of months from otherwise honest
attempts to use valgrind for application "squeaky clean" memory auditing.

Should this behavior be changed in POPT 2.0? It's a 1-liner change to remove
a strdup() somewhere, but the change does have profound (but minor, who
actually cares about a 49b 1-time memory leak these days) ramifications.

Meanwhile I'm way tired of explaining why its _NOT_ a memory leak, but rather
buggy use of POPT.

Opinions welcomed.

73 de Jeff
POPT Library                                           http://rpm5.org
Developer Communication List                       popt-devel@rpm5.org

Reply via email to