Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > So as a developer I wish we would close all leaks that are non-concerning. Valgrind suppression (and if you use other tools, suppression for them) sounds like the way to go, I would think. Reducing false positive is a good goal; it helps to highlight the real problems. But we need to find a way to do so without hurting the use by the end users by making them pay the unnecessary cost to free() at the end and by cluttering the code with #ifdefs that makes it easier to introduce subtle bugs. > David writes: >> AFAIK, nothing in the "definitely lost" category is fixed by your rev-parse patch. >> >> I don't think we care that much about "still reachable" memory -- I only care about lost memory. I could imagine, I guess, something that happens to save a pointer to a bunch of memory that should be freed, but I don't think that's the common case. > > As said above I'd want them to be fixed for me as a developer for > better automated tooling and detection. (The alternative to fix the automated > tooling is a no-no for me ;) Does the word "no-no" mean what you seem to think it means? It sounds as if you are saying "fixing tools to reduce false positives is fundamentally wrong, I refuse to go in that direction". -- 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