On 06/09, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > On Fri, Jun 9, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Martin Ågren <martin.ag...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 9 June 2017 at 10:53, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <ava...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Replace occurrences of `free(p); p = NULL` with `freez(p)`. This > >> introduces no functional changes, but cuts the number of lines spent > >> on this cleanup in half. > > > > It's even better than that. ;) > > > >> 48 files changed, 97 insertions(+), 197 deletions(-) > > > > The difference is in builtin/am.c where some empty lines are removed > > in am_next(), so no need to be alarmed. > > > > The macro would be dangerous with things like "freez(ptr++)" but I > > couldn't find any such side-effects. In hindsight, I guess your commit > > message says as much since using "ptr++" for "p" would already be a > > bug.
It also couldn't hurt to add a comment to the macro definition explaining that side-effect operators would be broken. > > Yes, although perhaps we should call this FREEZ() or GIT_FREEZ() > instead of freez() to make it clear that it's a macro. > > > I have no idea whether this conflicts with other topics, or any > > opinion on the best strategy for doing the conversion (all-at-once or > > "while we're here"). > > It has no conflicts with pu, so that's something, and passes all tests > with & without that merge. -- Brandon Williams
