Maybe we will discard this patch, because i looked on it and tested
with different places, it brings more leaks than before?
2014-11-26 9:53 GMT+06:00 Alexander Kuleshov <kuleshovmail@xxxxxxxxx>:
>>
>> Comparing this with what I sent out...
>>
>> > builtin/help.c | 10 +++++++---
>> > exec_cmd.c | 17 +++++++++--------
>> > exec_cmd.h | 4 ++--
>> > git.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>> > 4 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > @@ -372,7 +373,9 @@ static void show_man_page(const char *git_cmd)
>> > static void show_info_page(const char *git_cmd)
>> > {
>> > const char *page = cmd_to_page(git_cmd);
>> > - setenv("INFOPATH", system_path(GIT_INFO_PATH), 1);
>> > + char *git_info_path = system_path(GIT_INFO_PATH);
>> > + setenv("INFOPATH", git_info_path, 1);
>> > + free(git_info_path);
>>
>> We are just about to exec; does this warrant the code churn?
>
> hmm... Can't understand what's the problem here? We get git_info_path
> from system_path which returns pointer which will need to free, set it in
> environment var and than free it...
>
>>
>> > execlp("info", "info", "gitman", page, (char *)NULL);
>> > die(_("no info viewer handled the request"));
>>
>> > @@ -34,8 +34,7 @@ const char *system_path(const char *path)
>> > #endif
>> >
>> > strbuf_addf(&d, "%s/%s", prefix, path);
>> > - path = strbuf_detach(&d, NULL);
>> > - return path;
>> > + return d.buf;
>>
>> These happens to be the same with the current strbuf implementation,
>> but it is a good manner to use strbuf_detach(&d, NULL) here. We
>> don't know what other de-initialization tomorrow's implementation of
>> the strbuf API may have to do in strbuf_detach().
>
> How to do it in correct way?
>
>
> strbuf_addf(&d, "%s/%s", prefix, path);
> path = strbuf_detach(&d, NULL);
> return (char*)path;
>
> Or something else?
>
>>
>> > @@ -68,16 +67,16 @@ void git_set_argv_exec_path(const char *exec_path)
>> >
>> >
>> > /* Returns the highest-priority, location to look for git programs. */
>> > -const char *git_exec_path(void)
>> > +char *git_exec_path(void)
>> > {
>> > const char *env;
>> >
>> > if (argv_exec_path)
>> > - return argv_exec_path;
>> > + return strdup(argv_exec_path);
>> >
>> > env = getenv(EXEC_PATH_ENVIRONMENT);
>> > if (env && *env) {
>> > - return env;
>> > + return strdup(env);
>> > }
>>
>> Now you are making callers of git_exec_path() responsible for
>> freeing the result they receive.
>>
>> git_exec_path() may be called quite a lot, which means we may end up
>> calling system_path() many times during the life of a process
>> without freeing its return value, so this change may be worth doing,
>> but this patch is insufficient, isn't it?
>>
>> You just added load_command_list() in help.c a new leak or two, for
>> example. There probably are other callers of this function but I
>> don't have time to look at all of them myself right now.
>
> Yes, need to do that all git_exec_path() callers free result of git_exec_path.
>
>>
>> > @@ -95,8 +94,10 @@ void setup_path(void)
>> > {
>> > const char *old_path = getenv("PATH");
>> > struct strbuf new_path = STRBUF_INIT;
>> > + char* exec_path = git_exec_path();
>> >
>> > - add_path(&new_path, git_exec_path());
>> > + add_path(&new_path, exec_path);
>> > + free(exec_path);
>> > add_path(&new_path, argv0_path);
>>
>> This part by itself is good, provided if we make it the caller's
>> responsiblity to free string returned by git_exec_path().
>>
>> > diff --git a/git.c b/git.c
>> > index 82d7a1c..d01c4f1 100644
>> > --- a/git.c
>> > +++ b/git.c
>> > @@ -95,17 +95,25 @@ static int handle_options(const char ***argv, int *argc, int *envchanged)
>> > if (*cmd == '=')
>> > git_set_argv_exec_path(cmd + 1);
>> > else {
>> > - puts(git_exec_path());
>> > + char *exec_path = git_exec_path();
>> > + puts(exec_path);
>> > + free(exec_path);
>> > exit(0);
>> > }
>> > } else if (!strcmp(cmd, "--html-path")) {
>> > - puts(system_path(GIT_HTML_PATH));
>> > + char *git_html_path = system_path(GIT_HTML_PATH);
>> > + puts(git_html_path);
>> > + free(git_html_path);
>> > exit(0);
>> > } else if (!strcmp(cmd, "--man-path")) {
>> > - puts(system_path(GIT_MAN_PATH));
>> > + char *git_man_path = system_path(GIT_MAN_PATH);
>> > + puts(git_man_path);
>> > + free(git_man_path);
>> > exit(0);
>> > } else if (!strcmp(cmd, "--info-path")) {
>> > - puts(system_path(GIT_INFO_PATH));
>> > + char *git_info_path = system_path(GIT_INFO_PATH);
>> > + puts(git_info_path);
>> > + free(git_info_path);
>> > exit(0);
>> > } else if (!strcmp(cmd, "-p") || !strcmp(cmd, "--paginate")) {
>> > use_pager = 1;
>>
>> None of these warrant the code churn, I would say.
>
> Sorry, english is not my first language, what did you mean when saying:
> "code churn"? Code duplication or something else?
--
_________________________
0xAX
--
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