This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory leak in printf_positional

On 08/28/2015 09:55 AM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> I agree, but I don't think anyone should spend more than an hour trying
>> to find such a test case. The static analysis tools can show you a failure,
> I really don't think this case should take that long to find how to 
> trigger the leak.
> There will of course be cases where the reason for no test case is 
> something like "this bug only appears if you allocate memory occupying at 
> least 3/4 of the address space, which is impossible on most current 64-bit 
> systems and unreasonable for the testsuite to do on 32-bit systems even if 
> possible" - or cases where it's unclear whether any combination of 
> circumstances can cause the code in question to be reached in practice.  
> But the starting point for most user-visible bug fixes should be that a 
> test is added if it's straightforward to figure out how to test for the 
> bug reliably within the context of the existing test infrastructure.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]