This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Fix leak in forward-search
On Thu, 2018-11-29 at 15:42 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 11/27/2018 11:33 PM, Philippe Waroquiers wrote:
> > Valgrind reports the below leak.
> > Fix the leak by using xrealloc, even for the first allocation,
> > as buf is static.
> >
> > ==29158== 5,888 bytes in 23 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 3,028 of 3,149
> > ==29158== at 0x4C2BE2D: malloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:299)
> > ==29158== by 0x41B557: xmalloc (common-utils.c:44)
> > ==29158== by 0x60B7D9: forward_search_command(char const*, int) (source.c:1563)
> > ==29158== by 0x40BA68: cmd_func(cmd_list_element*, char const*, int) (cli-decode.c:1888)
> > ==29158== by 0x665300: execute_command(char const*, int) (top.c:630)
> > ...
> >
> > gdb/ChangeLog
> > 2018-11-28 Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>
> >
> > * source.c (forward_search_command): Fix leak by using
> > xrealloc even for the first allocation in the loop, as buf
> > is static.
>
> At first sight it would seem like 'buf' was made static to avoid
> allocating a growing buffer for each command invocation.
>
> But then, if that were the case, then you'd want 'cursize' to be
> static as well.
>
> The patch is OK, but I think that replacing 'buf' and all that
> manual buffer growing with a non-static gdb::def_vector<char> defined
> outside the outer loop would be even better.
Thanks for the review, I have pushed this version, but I have added in
my todo list the better fix + add a test : I found no explicit
functional test for this command + my limited time on GDB development is also
shared with analysing the remaining several hundreds tests having a definite
leak :).
Philippe