On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 05:56:21AM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> > Looks good. A similar bug was the exact reason for adding the function
> > in 46be82312. I did a grep for 'free.*\.objects' to see if there were
> > other cases.
>
> Ah. I grepped for "pending.objects", but didn't go more general t
On 20 September 2017 at 22:02, Jeff King wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
>
>> Instead of conditionally freeing `rev.pending.objects`, just call
>> `object_array_clear()` on `rev.pending`. This means we don't poke as
>> much into the implementation, which is a
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 09:47:24PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Instead of conditionally freeing `rev.pending.objects`, just call
> `object_array_clear()` on `rev.pending`. This means we don't poke as
> much into the implementation, which is already a good thing, but also
> that we free the indivi
Instead of conditionally freeing `rev.pending.objects`, just call
`object_array_clear()` on `rev.pending`. This means we don't poke as
much into the implementation, which is already a good thing, but also
that we free the individual entries as well, thereby fixing a
memory-leak.
Signed-off-by: Mar
4 matches
Mail list logo
