From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4A3C385F028 for ; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:04:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A4A3C385F028 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A4A3C385F028 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701965104; cv=none; b=FjiBC9fFIcvDD7MSkcwqhINCOLk7f3WZBTnpyUD/d8Ju8sjAKOvJf10vx6L5hfo0twHYFYB7biuGvwYBhjrBDjKgaGyRZHhj7AIY1xtvR99P+q0WFA+I9sCiO+3zbO70/4V0bHN2uWbH9zb8G87nYCgmsL6W8WRiou+WnLKyIso= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1701965104; c=relaxed/simple; bh=d6NxNVYnXjH7HmJ61j/T3eVx3F2MsUfZbxF/KxW1AVU=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=U/V/SZYILG3ILZbN7LDA0OUuHdnN+qwzjgbS2NtWIgg7X76SqLuNiUskrDUCx//XzuddXvE4I9xBd3SjEq7e6lzQQSgLs1ikPHiVIq4f3JcRza2XpxseVKB6N+eOb8EmcS9g5zvwFPIaiOQ5Y2mOlyUr8V7PhVk7XSQz0aOzM2I= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1701965094; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type:in-reply-to:in-reply-to: references:references; bh=CpuVa9fp/hiH+9H4O12+oY1hqnrLPVvIHJyTJnlmUkI=; b=SMaJ7ipo4s4DiX3Ujvlm9WgTt/P2W/zzDMJzFGPxZgq81bU2BBHUsZjA668Fi2Lw2XAmuT y2uvIFtxO5ZQAzwI4oZuY/0rvGUJ7TnTB6x8DS4UHLNrnCSHKdIWT58Ldlf8Ui9FRo7P/T uK9BskC0pvt2bvHAcmstjHN1ypT96wc= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mx-ext.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-300-DiYK-yRiN6mxq3y0cnZVWg-1; Thu, 07 Dec 2023 11:04:50 -0500 X-MC-Unique: DiYK-yRiN6mxq3y0cnZVWg-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F1BA1C29EA7; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.195.157]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C75C2026961; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 3B7G4ld3166821 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 7 Dec 2023 17:04:48 +0100 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 3B7G4lX5166819; Thu, 7 Dec 2023 17:04:47 +0100 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 17:04:46 +0100 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Costas Argyris Cc: Jonathan Wakely , gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver: Fix memory leak. Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.4 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 04:01:11PM +0000, Costas Argyris wrote: > Thanks for all the explanations. > > In that case I restrict this patch to just freeing the buffer from > within driver::finalize only (I think it should be XDELETEVEC > instead of XDELETE, no?). Both macros are exactly the same, but XDELETEVEC is probably better counterpart to XNEWVEC. Jakub