On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 22:50 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote: > Hi Jelmer, > > Jelmer Vernooij wrote: > > The same goes for that macro - if it doesn't deal with proper free'ing, > > then why not avoid it rather than rewrite the rest of the function that > > uses it? > > > > discard_const_p is bad, and we should avoid it unless we really can. > > > well, I agree that "discard_const_p" isn't so nice. But I think the > right solution (if we make use of memory contexts) would be to never > derive them from NULL, but from a "self" instance or kind of this or if > not possible (static) the LDB context. Even if we do that then it should be as a safeguard, not as an excuse not to call talloc_free().
The advantage of hanging them off NULL is that they can more easily be found using valgrind. If we don't free these kinds of contexts explicitly and they are allocated as children of e.g. the ldb context then that means they will stay around for as long as the ldb context stays around, which can be a very long time. So in some cases this will help contain the effect of the leak but it's by no means an alternative. Cheers, Jelmer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
