Martin Ågren writes:
>> Seeing hunks like this makes me happy with the UNLEAK() solution. It
>> would have been a real pain to do this via actual freeing.
>
> Yes, I was very happy to have it handy. :-)
OK, let's merge this to 'next', then.
On 2 October 2017 at 08:25, Jeff King wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:42:08PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
>
>> Add some UNLEAKs where we are about to return from `cmd_*`. UNLEAK the
>> variables in the same order as we've declared them. While addressing
>> `msg` in
On Sun, Oct 01, 2017 at 07:42:08PM +0200, Martin Ågren wrote:
> Add some UNLEAKs where we are about to return from `cmd_*`. UNLEAK the
> variables in the same order as we've declared them. While addressing
> `msg` in builtin/tag.c, convert the existing `strbuf_release()` calls as
> well.
It
Martin Ågren writes:
> ... While addressing `msg` in builtin/tag.c, convert the existing
> `strbuf_release()` calls as well.
That part of this patch made me raise eyebrows a bit but only
slightly. We are about to leave the function to exit anyway, and
all the other that
Add some UNLEAKs where we are about to return from `cmd_*`. UNLEAK the
variables in the same order as we've declared them. While addressing
`msg` in builtin/tag.c, convert the existing `strbuf_release()` calls as
well.
Signed-off-by: Martin Ågren
---
builtin/checkout.c
5 matches
Mail list logo