2011/4/29 Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>:
On 04/29/2011 11:48 AM, Matthias Bolte wrote:
+++ b/tests/testutils.c @@ -478,7 +478,6 @@ int virtTestMain(int argc, int (*func)(void)) { int ret; - char cwd[PATH_MAX]; #if TEST_OOM int approxAlloc = 0; int n; @@ -491,7 +490,7 @@ int virtTestMain(int argc,
abs_srcdir = getenv("abs_srcdir"); if (!abs_srcdir) - abs_srcdir = getcwd(cwd, sizeof(cwd)); + abs_srcdir = getcwd(NULL, 0); if (!abs_srcdir) exit(EXIT_AM_HARDFAIL);
Now you have created a memory leak (not a critical one, that's true), because abs_srcdir can be malloc'ed and you missed to free it.
It's technically only a leak if someone overwrites abs_srcdir with different contents without freeing it first, since there is a global variable that still tracks the pointer through the point of program exit(). Valgrind reports this type of open-ended allocation as "still reachable", rather than "definitely lost".
I know, but I like valgrind clean software :)
But, to make valgrind even quieter, yes, I can fix things up to free the memory if it was not read from getenv and before returning from virtTestMain.
Thanks.
ACK, with that memory leak fixed.
Pushed with this addition:
diff --git i/tests/testutils.c w/tests/testutils.c index 91035a2..ae73530 100644 --- i/tests/testutils.c +++ w/tests/testutils.c @@ -478,6 +478,7 @@ int virtTestMain(int argc, int (*func)(void)) { int ret; + bool abs_srcdir_cleanup = falseb;
As I saw this line, I hoped you didn't push it with that typo... and you didn't :) Now I'll go and rebase my stack usage cleanup patch. Matthias