On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 03:26:09AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 11:38:50AM +0100, Patrick Steinhardt wrote: > > This neatly demonstrates one of the issues with `UNLEAK()`: it is quite > > easy for the annotation to become stale. A second issue is that its > > whole intent is to paper over leaks. And while that has been a necessary > > evil in the past, because Git was leaking left and right, it isn't > > really much of an issue nowadays where our test suite has no known leaks > > anymore. > > I do agree that stale annotations are a weakness (they do not hurt the > leak-checker if they exist, but they are an eye-sore). > > I'm not sure I would agree that the intent was to paper over leaks. The > point was to avoid noise from the leak-checker about memory that was > intentionally held until program exit and released by returning from > main(). I think the main thing that made it obsolete is that we decided > it was worth it to spend the cycles freeing that memory rather than > ignoring it. > > But it's possible I'm just splitting hairs. :) Yeah, I know that this was also used to mark memory that intentionally leaks because we're about to exit anyway. I basically consider that as some form of "papering over" it, but I get your comment that this may be a bit too strongly worded. Do you want me to reformulate this, or do we just go with the current description? Patrick
