On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:06:38 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 05/30/2018 06:46 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:28 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> >> There's no point in calling testInitQEMUCaps() (which sets
> >> info.qemuCaps) only to overwrite (and leak) it on th
On 05/30/2018 06:46 PM, Peter Krempa wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:28 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
>> There's no point in calling testInitQEMUCaps() (which sets
>> info.qemuCaps) only to overwrite (and leak) it on the very next
>> line.
>>
>> ==12962== 296 (208 direct, 88 indirect) bytes
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 18:04:28 +0200, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> There's no point in calling testInitQEMUCaps() (which sets
> info.qemuCaps) only to overwrite (and leak) it on the very next
> line.
>
> ==12962== 296 (208 direct, 88 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost
> in loss record
There's no point in calling testInitQEMUCaps() (which sets
info.qemuCaps) only to overwrite (and leak) it on the very next
line.
==12962== 296 (208 direct, 88 indirect) bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost
in loss record 265 of 331
==12962==at 0x4C2CF26: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:711)
==12
