On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 4:46 AM Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 04:11:26AM -0400, Eric Sunshine wrote: > > For completeness, I'll mention that I even had the thought that > > another "fix" would be to tear out all the cleanup code entirely since > > we _know_ that this function will be exiting immediately and the OS > > will clean up any dangling resources. > > The reason we have the "cleanup" label at all is because of the memory > leaks. And there the issue is that we build the test helpers with the > same compiler settings as the rest of the code, so SANITIZE=leak will > complain. So I think that is a non-starter. > > But if you just meant leaking descriptors, sure, I don't think any tools > complain about that. ;) At the time the momentary (but not really serious) thought flashed through my brain, I probably was imagining dropping all of the cleanup code; I almost certainly wasn't thinking about the SANITIZE=leak case. But immediately upon seeing your idea to use die(), I recognized it (and liked it) as a superior version of my half-baked thought.
