On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 11:12:36AM -0200, [email protected] wrote:
>> From: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]>
>>
>> It seems appropriate to make the function that frees the list elements
>> also free the list.
>>
>> 80 bytes in 1 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 411 of 631
>> at 0x4C2779D: malloc (vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
>> by 0x4C27927: realloc (vgpreload_memcheck-amd64-linux.so)
>> by 0x696A80D: scandir (scandir.c:108)
>> by 0x4D8828: OpenConfigDir (scan.c:854)
>> by 0x4D8A43: xf86openConfigDirFiles (scan.c:952)
>> by 0x49031F: xf86HandleConfigFile (xf86Config.c:2327)
>> by 0x49A9E3: InitOutput (xf86Init.c:365)
>> by 0x425A7A: main (main.c:204)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paulo Zanoni <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> hw/xfree86/parser/scan.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/xfree86/parser/scan.c b/hw/xfree86/parser/scan.c
>> index 668237b..96ea703 100644
>> --- a/hw/xfree86/parser/scan.c
>> +++ b/hw/xfree86/parser/scan.c
>> @@ -818,6 +818,7 @@ AddConfigDirFiles(const char *dirpath, struct dirent
>> **list, int num)
>> numFiles++;
>> }
>>
>> + free(list);
>
> not a big fan of doing this. why can't the caller (which allocates the list)
> free it? imo it'd make much more sense to the occasional reader of the code
Yeah, that seems right.
>> return openedFile;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -856,7 +857,6 @@ OpenConfigDir(const char *path, const char *cmdline,
>> const char *projroot,
>> if (!found) {
>> free(dirpath);
>> dirpath = NULL;
>> - free(list);
>> }
>> }
>>
If you just move this free(list) outside the conditional, it's covered, right?
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
[email protected]: X.Org development
Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
