[Compiler-sig] Memory leaks
jeremy at alum.mit.edu
Tue Oct 25 19:12:18 CEST 2005
Would it make sense to have the constructors own their arguments even
when they fail? That is, have them free the arguments if they can't
constructor an object? Or have a variant of the constructor functions
that does behave this way?
On 10/25/05, Neal Norwitz <nnorwitz at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/05, Neil Schemenauer <nas at arctrix.com> wrote:
> > Should be fixed.
> > While poking around I noticed a large number of theoretical
> > leaks. Code like:
> > return Delete(expr_list, LINENO(n));
> > when it should be:
> > r = Delete(expr_list, LINENO(n));
> > if (!r)
> > asdl_free_free(expr_list);
> > return r;
> > How tedious.
> Yup, I think I got a bunch of outstanding changes for some of those,
> but there are many, many more.
More information about the Compiler-sig