Andrzej Hunt <andrzej@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> On 21 Oct 2021, at 13:42, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Call free() just before die() in two API functions whose tests are >> asserted under SANITIZE=leak. Normally this would not be needed due to >> how SANITIZE=leak works, but in these cases my GCC version (10.2.1-6) >> will fail tests t0001 and t0017 under SANITIZE=leak depending on the >> optimization level. > > I’m curious - to me this seems like a compiler/sanitiser bug, can > it also be reproduced with clang, or even newer versions of gcc? > Similarly, can it be reproduced with your gcc version, using > ASAN+LSAN (as opposed to LSAN by itself)? I remember seeing some > false positives in the past for some permutations of compilers and > sanitisers, but I’ve lost track of the details. > > These kinds of fixes seem noisy if it’s just to work around what > appears to be a bug (and to be philosophical: we wouldn’t want to > do the same for all “leaks” up the call stack if a specific > compiler complained about them after a die() - after all there > will be many more allocations that didn’t get free’d floating > around - so why is it OK for these “leaks”?) Exactly my feeling. I'll leave this patch hanging on the list without picking it up until we know this is a reasonable "fix" on our side and not adding noize only to work around the bug in the tools. Thanks.
