On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 11:57:59PM -0400, Jeff King wrote: > On Sun, Jun 30, 2024 at 08:46:38AM +0200, Rubén Justo wrote: > > > We can mark t0613 as leak-free: > > [...] > > I'm not sure why this simple change has fallen through the cracks. > > Therefore, it's possible that I'm missing something. > > > > I'd appreciate if someone could double-check. > > I'd noticed it, too, while doing recent leak fixes. But since Patrick > has been working on leaks and is the go-to person for reftables, I > assumed he had already seen it and there was something clever going on. ;) Nah, you assumed too much :) I just forgot to mark this as leak-free and the topic crossed with my memory-leak-fix topics, so I didn't yet find the time to fix it. It does highlight an issue though: I think memory leak checks should be opt-out rather than opt-in by now. Most of our tests run just fine with the memory leak checker enabled, and that's also where we want to be headed. So making tests opt-out would likely raise more eyebrows when new tests are being added that explicitly opt out. The only reason I didn't send a patch like this yet is that it would of course create quite a bit of churn in our tests. I'm not sure whether that churn is really worth it, or whether we should instead just continue fixing tests until we can get rid of this marking altogether because all of our tests pass. Patrick
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
