<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 13.04.2013 2:45, Jordan Rose wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CF5CBD32-1D0E-4A19-BBD6-903F90E79487@apple.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Apr 12, 2013, at 15:36 , Anton Yartsev <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:anton.yartsev@gmail.com">anton.yartsev@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">On 13.04.2013 1:52, Jordan
Rose wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Sorry, I did this deliberately—I
wanted NewDeleteLeaks to be a "sub-checker" of sorts,
where you couldn't track leaks without also tracking
use-after-free issues. Of course, if I really wanted to do
that, I should have also made NewDeleteLeaks automatically
enable NewDelete, in the same way that they all enable the
basic CStringChecker. (Really, only the malloc checkers
should do that.)<br>
<br>
I guess I should have discussed this with you before
slipping it in like this, but do you have an opinion on
which way you'd prefer and why? (Can't tell if this is an
opinion or just automatically fixing what looked like a
mistake.)<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align:
start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space:
normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">Just automatically fixing.
I addressed false-positive leaks and only enabled
NewDeleteLeaks. Was surprised that it does not catch
anything. Thought it is a bug.<br>
Should I rollback the commit and add explanatory comment or
leave as is for now?<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, I think so; adding the code to have NewDeleteLeaks
automatically enable NewDelete also makes sense, so that we
don't trip over this again and so that the dependency is
documented in code.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My particular reason for this is that we already have a
number of tests about the interaction between the different
pieces of MallocChecker, and I'd like to avoid adding to that
configuration matrix. This way, we never have to worry about the
case where NewDeleteLeaks is enabled but NewDelete is not, which
should help us avoid the problems like what happened with
MismatchedDeallocator (Malloc + MismatchedDeallocator =
NewDelete!).</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>Jordan</div>
</blockquote>
Committed at r179428.<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anton</pre>
</body>
</html>