Re: [PATCH 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:38:51 -0700
- From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/10] add UNLEAK annotation for reducing leak false positives
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:17 AM, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> After having a sneak peak at the implementation
>> it is O(1) in runtime for each added element, and the
>> space complexity is O(well).
> I'm not sure if your "well" is "this does well" or "well, it could be
> quite a lot". :)
Both actually. When I wrote it I thought the phonetic interpretation
was way too funny, but nobody can hear subtle humor on mailing
If UNLEAK is used correctly, then it sounds more like
"this does well (and we cannot do better anyway)".
> It certainly has the potential to grow the heap without bound (since
> after all, it's whole point is to make a giant list of variables that
> are going out of scope). But in practice we'd sprinkle this over a
> handful of variables just before program exit (and remember that it's
> copying only what's on the stack already; so pointers get copied, not
> whole heap-allocated blocks).
> Plus it does nothing at all when not compiled with leak-checking. So I'm
> not too worried about the extra memory usage or performance.
Thanks for starting this series (I am really happy about this solution)!