Re: [PATCH 3/4] unpack-trees: plug a memory leak

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

I seem to recall that many callers set src_index and dst_index to
the same istate, and expect that the original istate pointed by the
src_index to remain usable.  Is it safe to discard it like this at
this point?

 
 done:
 	clear_exclude_list(&el);

On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 2:33 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:

Felipe Contreras [off-list ref] writes:

quoted

Before overwriting the destination index, first let's discard it's
contents.

Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <redacted>
---
 unpack-trees.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/unpack-trees.c b/unpack-trees.c
index ede4299..eff2944 100644
--- a/unpack-trees.c
+++ b/unpack-trees.c

@@ -1146,8 +1146,10 @@ int unpack_trees(unsigned len, struct tree_desc *t, struct unpack_trees_options

      o->src_index = NULL;
      ret = check_updates(o) ? (-2) : 0;
-     if (o->dst_index)
+     if (o->dst_index) {
+             discard_index(o->dst_index);
              *o->dst_index = o->result;
+     }

I seem to recall that many callers set src_index and dst_index to
the same istate, and expect that the original istate pointed by the
src_index to remain usable.  Is it safe to discard it like this at
this point?

Who expects that?

-- 
Felipe Contreras