fix memory leak in Node4.remove #790
Merged
+172
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
da6ea08 to
b7f62d2
Compare
add tests for Node4
b7f62d2 to
6e1b840
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
why does the gradle wrapper validation keep failing? |
Member
|
Merged. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
SUMMARY
Node4 has a memory leak. The last node references is nulled
so if you have a node containing (a,b,c,d)
and then you remove(0), and remove (2)
The leak is caused by the fist remove, but only becomes a leaf on the second one
the node contains ((b,c), but the child array is (b,c,null, d)
I had a quick look at the higher order odes and they look OK, but need tests
I dont have time to write these now, and cant be sure of not similar leaf being there (or creeping in later), so I think there should be some tests to confirm this
Automated Checks
./gradlew testand made sure that my PR does not break any unit test.