This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leak in printf_positional
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2015 13:55:31 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leak in printf_positional
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1440571295-20230-1-git-send-email-eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508260930500 dot 26898 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <55DFB7C7 dot 50307 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> I agree, but I don't think anyone should spend more than an hour trying
> to find such a test case. The static analysis tools can show you a failure,
I really don't think this case should take that long to find how to
trigger the leak.
There will of course be cases where the reason for no test case is
something like "this bug only appears if you allocate memory occupying at
least 3/4 of the address space, which is impossible on most current 64-bit
systems and unreasonable for the testsuite to do on 32-bit systems even if
possible" - or cases where it's unclear whether any combination of
circumstances can cause the code in question to be reached in practice.
But the starting point for most user-visible bug fixes should be that a
test is added if it's straightforward to figure out how to test for the
bug reliably within the context of the existing test infrastructure.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com