Interesting find with cppcheck..

[Alexandre Julliard]

Francois Gouget <fgouget at free.fr> writes:

> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009, Juan Lang wrote:
>
>> > Still wouldn't hurt to fix them.
>> 
>> Well, Alexandre routinely rejects such "fixes."
>
> It may be worth reconsidering.
>
> Just like if you have hundreds of compilation warnings the useful ones 
> get lost in the sea, if such these tools report too many valid leaks, 
> it will be hard to notice the important ones, or the new leaks.
>
> In any case I see no reason not to fix those in the conformance tests. 
> Yes they may take a few extra milliseconds to run, but they are not 
> performance critical anyway.

If there are real leaks in the tests, then they should be fixed, but
hacking the code to silence false positives is not a good idea. There
are more and more analysis tools out there, we can't add workarounds for
every limitation of every tool. False positives should be reported to
the tools authors instead.

-- 
Alexandre Julliard
julliard at winehq.org