ensure_pdata: Return unique_ptr so as to not leak resources #269
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Depending on the code-path we return either a unique_ptr with a trivial deleter (bound column: we are just re-casting something stored in pdata_), or a proper unique_ptr (unbound column: we are allocating memory in this function and calling SQLGetData).
mloskot
requested changes
Mar 21, 2021
|
Hi / ping - let me know if I can do anything else. Thanks! |
|
Sorry for delay, @detule , it's merged now. Thanks |
Closed
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @mloskot @lexicalunit
Fixing here a memory leak I introduced with
ensure_pdatain #236I may be guilty of over-thinking the solution here; any feedback is appreciated. It seemed to me that, given that we are allocating memory in the function, returning a smart rather than raw pointer is preferable. But then, I was struggling with the two code-paths - one where we are just re-casting the
pdata_pointer, and the other where we are returning a pointer to a new allocation. In the former case, where there is another part of the code-base that is responsible for managing that memory allocation, I ended up returning aunique_ptrwith a trivial deleter.Happy to post the valgrind stats, but the leak is pretty obvious.