This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Fix memory leak in windows_xfer_shared_libraries
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Pierre Muller <pierre dot muller at ics-cnrs dot unistra dot fr>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 20:16:04 +0000
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Fix memory leak in windows_xfer_shared_libraries
- References: <50c9b7e6.25f2440a.3810.3771SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
On 12/13/2012 11:11 AM, Pierre Muller wrote:
> --- windows-nat.c 13 Nov 2012 09:46:10 -0000 1.236
> +++ windows-nat.c 13 Dec 2012 10:54:18 -0000
> @@ -2411,11 +2411,11 @@ windows_xfer_shared_libraries (struct ta
> buf = obstack_finish (&obstack);
> len_avail = strlen (buf);
> if (offset >= len_avail)
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (len > len_avail - offset)
> + len= 0
> + else if (len > len_avail - offset)
> len = len_avail - offset;
> - memcpy (readbuf, buf + offset, len);
> + if (len > 0)
> + memcpy (readbuf, buf + offset, len);
>
You can avoid the last if by writing as:
if (offset >= len_avail)
len = 0;
else
{
if (len > len_avail - offset)
len = len_avail - offset;
memcpy (readbuf, buf + offset, len);
}
I'd prefer that, but patch is okay either way.
> obstack_free (&obstack, NULL);
> return len;
>
> I was also wondering if it would not be better to keep the obstack in
> between the two calls, but that would probably require some static variable
> :(
That'd be fine. We actually do that in some cases in gdbserver, like
handle_qxfer_threads and handle_qxfer_traceframe_info. It just didn't
look like worth it enough to bother when I initially wrote this.
--
Pedro Alves