Re: [PATCH 1/4] vsh-table: Use g_autofree where possible
On 3/1/21 10:54 AM, Ján Tomko wrote:
On a Thursday in 2021, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 2/25/21 1:20 PM, Ján Tomko wrote:
>> On a Tuesday in 2021, Kristina Hanicova wrote:
>>> In: vshTableRowNew(), vshTablePrint(), vshTablePrintToStdout().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kristina Hanicova <khanicov(a)redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> tools/vsh-table.c | 16 +++++-----------
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/vsh-table.c b/tools/vsh-table.c
>>> index d09cc9e14e..2e10abfc90 100644
>>> --- a/tools/vsh-table.c
>>> +++ b/tools/vsh-table.c
>>> @@ -361,8 +359,8 @@ vshTablePrint(vshTablePtr table, bool header)
>>> {
>>> size_t i;
>>> size_t j;
>>> - size_t *maxwidths;
>>> - size_t **widths;
>>> + g_autofree size_t *maxwidths = NULL;
>>> + g_autofree size_t **widths = NULL;
>>> g_auto(virBuffer) buf = VIR_BUFFER_INITIALIZER;
>>> char *ret = NULL;
>>>
>>> @@ -395,10 +393,8 @@ vshTablePrint(vshTablePtr table, bool header)
>>> ret = virBufferContentAndReset(&buf);
>>>
>>> cleanup:
>>> - VIR_FREE(maxwidths);
>>
>>> for (i = 0; i < table->nrows; i++)
>>> VIR_FREE(widths[i]);
>>> - VIR_FREE(widths);
>>
>> While this does not change the behavior, mixing g_autofree for the outer
>> array while using VIR_FREE for the per-row arrays feels incomplete.
>
> Any idea what would make it feel complete again?
>
Freeing all the memory associated with 'widths' automatically, or none
of it.
Yeah, I think that arrays of pointers to allocated objects were the only
uses of VIR_FREE that I ended up not eliminating in my patches that
removed *most* VIR_FREE from the esx directory. I didn't have the
motivation to figure out the proper best way to fix them...
So either:
* introduce a new typedef for 'size_t **' and define a cleanup function
for it that does that
* use a different data type (does GLib have one that could do this for
us?)
glib has GArray (arrays of arbitrarily-sized elements) and GPtrArray
(arrays of pointers). I suppose we should be using those (although they
seem more complicated than VIR_INSERT_ELEMENT and friends, I'm probably
unfairly biased. (I do acknowledge that it's nice that they have the
size as a part of the array).
But both seem out of scope of a simple g_autofree cleanup.
Yeah, it's going to take some of that stuff, what's it called now?....
Oh yeah - initiative, that's what it is.
(I'm actually just about to try fixing a bug (not related to memory
management) using GArray for the first time. I'll let you know how it goes)