> On April 12, 2016, 2:16 p.m., Benjamin Bannier wrote: > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/decoder_tests.cpp, line 202 > > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/46094/diff/1/?file=1341387#file1341387line202> > > > > Here and everywhere below: This still leaks if any of above `EXPECT_*` > > fail; in that case we continue running tests. > > > > Since we `ASSERT` that we only got a single response we might as well > > do just > > > > Owned<http::Response> reponse = response[0]; > > > > If the goal of this nice effort is to be able to run tests under leak > > checkers (and potentially correlate failures to memory problems), I'd > > really appreciate using some smart pointer for automatic cleanup instead.
Good point! Adjusted this commit to use `Owned` instead, and submitted an additional RR that makes use of `Owned` in a few other places in the libprocess tests. - Neil ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46094/#review128404 ----------------------------------------------------------- On April 12, 2016, 2:02 p.m., Neil Conway wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/46094/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated April 12, 2016, 2:02 p.m.) > > > Review request for mesos, Joris Van Remoortere and Joseph Wu. > > > Repository: mesos > > > Description > ------- > > Fixed memory leaks in Encoder/Decoder tests in libprocess. > > > Diffs > ----- > > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/decoder_tests.cpp > bd990c5eb77e47d7f617199bcc89e9432af7cc51 > 3rdparty/libprocess/src/tests/encoder_tests.cpp > 61ec8d8722245179a929e954e6338606973b819b > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/46094/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > make check > > Verified that the number of leaked allocations decreases (from ~129 to ~92) > with this change. Obviously there are more leaks to investigate but at first > glance they seem a bit more subtle. > > > Thanks, > > Neil Conway > >
