There's not currently any way to free the resources associated with a
decoration struct. As a result, we have several memory leaks which
cannot easily be plugged.
Let's add a "clear" function and make use of it in the example code of
t9004. This removes the only leak from that script, so we can mark it as
passing the leak sanitizer.
Curiously this leak is found only when running SANITIZE=leak with clang,
but not with gcc. But it is a bog-standard leak: we allocate some
memory in a local variable struct, and then exit main() without
releasing it. I'm not sure why gcc doesn't find it. After this
patch, both compilers report it as leak-free.
Note that the clear function takes a callback to free the individual
entries. That's not needed for our example (which is just decorating
with ints), but will be for real callers.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There has been a push to remove extern from function declarations.
Remove some instances of "extern" for function declarations which are
caught by Coccinelle. Note that Coccinelle has some difficulty with
processing functions with `__attribute__` or varargs so some `extern`
declarations are left behind to be dealt with in a future patch.
This was the Coccinelle patch used:
@@
type T;
identifier f;
@@
- extern
T f(...);
and it was run with:
$ git ls-files \*.{c,h} |
grep -v ^compat/ |
xargs spatch --sp-file contrib/coccinelle/noextern.cocci --in-place
Files under `compat/` are intentionally excluded as some are directly
copied from external sources and we should avoid churning them as much
as possible.
Signed-off-by: Denton Liu <liu.denton@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Improve the names of the identifiers in decorate.h, document them, and
add an example of how to use these functions.
The example is compiled and run as part of the test suite.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We don't actually modify the struct object, so there is no
reason not to accept const versions (and this allows other
callsites, like the next patch, to use the decoration
machinery).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This allows you to add an arbitrary "decoration" of your choice to any
object. It's a space- and time-efficient way to add information to
arbitrary objects, especially if most objects probably do not have the
decoration.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
