Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@xxxxxx> writes: > Oh wow, from a cursory look it seems as if the diff machinery was not > exactly careful with releasing memory. I might be mistaken, but if I am > not, then this would deserve a separate patch series, methinks. I wouldn't be surprised if newer parts of it is much less careful than the older parts of the machinery. Most callers of the diff machinery, including "log -p" that repeatedly generates patches, would however run just a single setup for the entire series of diff invocations before tearing it down AFIAR, so leaking the result of parsing the command line option may not be such a big deal to these callers. But some callers added recently may not follow the access pattern, in which case the machinery may have to be made more leakproof. Thanks.
