On 03/06/2020 02:01, Ramsay Jones wrote: > On 02/06/2020 17:33, Luc Van Oostenryck wrote: [snip] > I applied this patch just now and everything worked fine. In addition, > the tests from my patch also passed, once I had remembered to add the > -Wno-universal-initializer to the 'check-command' - because I do not > have the patch which changes the default for that warning. > > The only thing which gave me pause ... > >> Fixes: 537e3e2daebd37d69447e65535fc94e82b38fc18 >> Signed-off-by: Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> evaluate.c | 3 +++ >> expression.h | 1 + >> parse.c | 15 ++++++++------- >> validation/Wuniv-init-ko.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> validation/Wuniv-init-ok.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 5 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/evaluate.c b/evaluate.c >> index 8d2e68692a48..16553eb3481b 100644 >> --- a/evaluate.c >> +++ b/evaluate.c >> @@ -2608,6 +2608,9 @@ static void handle_list_initializer(struct expression *expr, >> struct expression *e, *last = NULL, *top = NULL, *next; >> int jumped = 0; >> >> + if (expr->zero_init) >> + expr->expr_list = NULL; > > ... was the potential memory leak here. (OK it wouldn't be a > huge leak, but still!). Heh, as soon as my head hit the pillow I realised that, due to extensive use of memory pools/arenas, this is a rather silly comment! ;-) [Ah, well, it was 2am!] ATB, Ramsay Jones
