From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: "Tristan Partin" <tristan@partin.io>
cc: "pgsql-hackers" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Add malloc attribute to memory allocation functions
In-reply-to: <DJNFBUWD276K.2OPIYJQS75W84@partin.io>
References: <DJNFBUWD276K.2OPIYJQS75W84@partin.io>
Comments: In-reply-to "Tristan Partin" <tristan@partin.io>
	message dated "Wed, 01 Jul 2026 17:51:25 -0000"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <924282.1783312014.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 00:26:54 -0400
Message-ID: <924283.1783312014@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/924283.1783312014%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

"Tristan Partin" <tristan@partin.io> writes:
> Given that we now have a tree that compiles fine against 
> -Werror=mismatched-dealloc, we need to make sure that we don't regress. 
> By adding the malloc attribute[0], we can protect against regressions, 
> enable more accurate code coverage with -fanalyzer, and allow the 
> compiler to do some optimizations.

I'm skeptical that this is going to lead to anything but grief.
In particular, since gcc has never heard of memory contexts,
I don't see how we are not going to get buried in bogus
-Wanalyzer-malloc-leak warnings.  It doesn't really help
to add compiler annotations that only sort-of match our semantics.

(This opinion is based on years of dismissing useless Coverity
warnings of this kind.)

			regards, tom lane