Hi, On 9 September 2014 07:49, Pekka Paalanen <ppaala...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2014 11:00:37 -0700 > Bill Spitzak <spit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/07/2014 11:28 PM, Pekka Paalanen wrote: > > Trying to shut up valgrind on exit is an exercise in futility and adding > > a free() to try to shut it up often requires lots of unwanted code > > changes as this demonstrates. > > Yes, there are at least two schools on that. Some say, that a one-time > allocation cannot be a leak. That is true, but only as long as it stays > a one-time allocation. Guaranteeing that is the hard part. > > I prefer plugging all reports that can be plugged without corner-case > bugs, so that actual leaks do not get hidden between these. It is very > frustrating to analyze Valgrind reports just to create a suppressions > file so that I might see only the real leaks. > Yes, this. If Valgrind isn't instantly and immediately usable, no-one will use it: much like there are no gcc warnings which are 'fine' to have, since they just hide all the real ones. > I also favour consistency in coding style. We code all "normal" > functions to not leak, so why not main(), too. > And if/when libweston becomes a thing, there will be no 'normal' functions. Cheers, Daniel
_______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list wayland-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
