Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > So I'd prefer to keep this part of the general structure as-is, > i.e. even if we do nothing with "diffopt" *yet* we can assert ... Please don't. It will become hard to tell during the patch progression if "we can do so even though we do not need to do so *yet*" is correct (e.g. diffopt---which does not have a separate allocation to be released), or if "pretending that the field is cleared by _release() function is premature and will lead to a new leak" (e.g. if you lost separate clearing of .prune_data at this step, that would be an incorrect change because it does hold on to an allocated resource).
