[PATCH] Fix memory leak in printf_positional
Carlos O'Donell
carlos@redhat.com
Fri Aug 28 13:59:00 GMT 2015
On 08/28/2015 09:55 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> 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.
Agreed.
c.
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list