On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 5:07 AM, Johannes Schindelin
<johannes.schinde...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, 30 May 2018, Stefan Beller wrote:
>
>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com>
>> ---
>> builtin/submodule--helper.c | 1 +
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/builtin/submodule--helper.c b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> index 7c3cd9dbeba..96024fee1b1 100644
>> --- a/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> +++ b/builtin/submodule--helper.c
>> @@ -63,6 +63,7 @@ static int print_default_remote(int argc, const char
>> **argv, const char *prefix)
>> if (remote)
>> printf("%s\n", remote);
>>
>> + free(remote);
>
> Makes sense.
>
> Out of curiosity (and because a cover letter is missing): how did you
> stumble over these? Coverity?
Yes I found them on coverity as I wanted to find out how bad their
false positives are these days. So I looked at the most recent findings.
I somehow imagined that we could redefine the _INIT macros which
usually lead to false positives (just alloc&UNLEAK memory instead of
pointing them all at the same memory for _INIT), but that experiment
did not work out.
Thanks,
Stefan
