On 26/08/07, chromatic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 26, 2007 at 11:14:11AM -0700, Paul Cochrane wrote: > > > The variable ins2 is freed by the call to subst_ins() but is then > > later assigned to later in the if-block. Um, this isn't a good idea > > is it? The variable shouldn't be freed in subst_ins() I don't think, > > so shouldn't we instead have the line: > > > > subst_ins(unit, ins2, tmp, 0); > > > > (where setting the argument to 0 means *not* freeing the variable). > > > > Is this the right thing to do? Just wanted to ask the opinion of our > > resident gurus before I went and broke something... > > free() takes a pointer and frees the memory pointed at. The variable itself > is > just a storage location for that pointer. Maybe reusing the variable name is > confusing to humans, but I don't see any particular trouble for the computer > here.
Ok, I'll just tell the Coverity thing to ignore that particular warning. leo, chromatic: thanks for your feedback! Paul
