Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I am getting
>>
>> cc1: warnings being treated as errors
>> lockfile.c:189: error: 'optimize' attribute directive ignored
>> make: *** [lockfile.o] Error 1
>>
>> from this patch with gcc (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) 4.3.2
>
> Unfortunate. With gcc 4.5 it works, but that isn't too useful.
>
>> Aren't "struct lock_file" instances supposed to be reachable from the
>> linked list, i.e. lock_file_list? Why does valgrind consider that
>> elements on that list are leaked in the first place?
>
> At exit, we walk the lock file list and clear it in the process.
> Which suggests a cleaner workaround (thanks!):
>
> static void remove_lock_file(void)
> {
> pid_t me = getpid();
> + struct lock_file *p = lock_file_list;
>
> - while (lock_file_list) {
> - if (lock_file_list->owner == me &&
> - lock_file_list->filename[0]) {
> - if (lock_file_list->fd >= 0)
> - close(lock_file_list->fd);
> - unlink_or_warn(lock_file_list->filename);
> - }
> - lock_file_list = lock_file_list->next;
> + while (p) {
> + if (p->owner == me &&
> + p->filename[0]) {
> + if (p->fd >= 0)
> + close(p->fd);
> + unlink_or_warn(p->filename);
> + }
> + p = lock_file_list->next;
> }
Heh, shouldn't the last one assign from p->next?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html