On 8/19/21 2:00 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 11:30 -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
Hey Aldy & Andrew,
I introduced a leak by calling enable_ranger() without pairing it
with one to disable_ranger() on the same function (PR 101984).
I didn't realize (or look to see) t
On 8/19/21 1:30 PM, Martin Sebor wrote:
Hey Aldy & Andrew,
I introduced a leak by calling enable_ranger() without pairing it
with one to disable_ranger() on the same function (PR 101984).
I didn't realize (or look to see) that enable_ranger() dynamically
allocates memory.
The patch below adds c
On Thu, 2021-08-19 at 11:30 -0600, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Hey Aldy & Andrew,
>
> I introduced a leak by calling enable_ranger() without pairing it
> with one to disable_ranger() on the same function (PR 101984).
> I didn't realize (or look to see) that enable_ranger() dynamically
>
Hey Aldy & Andrew,
I introduced a leak by calling enable_ranger() without pairing it
with one to disable_ranger() on the same function (PR 101984).
I didn't realize (or look to see) that enable_ranger() dynamically
allocates memory.
The patch below adds comments to make it clear that the calls n
