On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 05:56:32PM +0100, Tim Duesterhus wrote: > Willy, > > take note of the parameter of `istfree()`. It takes a pointer to adjust the > to-be-freed `ist` to be equivalent to `IST_NULL` (preventing use-after-free). > This usually requires the addition of the `&` operator within the call. I can > adjust this if you strongly dislike it.
Quite the contrary, I find that it's an excellent idea! I'm always complaining about free() not taking a pointer to pointer nor returning a pointer, and always forcing to have two distinct statements. At least this problem is solved here! Willy
