On Sun, 2006-03-12 at 16:32 -0800, Jeremy Allison wrote: > On Sun, Mar 12, 2006 at 07:22:18PM -0500, simo wrote: > > > > Yes, I'm following the streams of patches. Do you know what I thought > > when I saw it? > > "That would not have happened if we had a talloc hierarchy". > > A talloc hierarchy hung off random pointers is a poor man's C++ (IMHO). > It can be horribly misued. I'm wary of them at the moment. > > > But I see you feel strongly (reading another reply while answering) .. > > in that case why not just make talloc_free check for context not being > > null itself instead of adding a really ugly (visually because of all > > caps) macro ? :-) > > Consistency with the Samba4 talloc. It's the Samba3 style here, I'd > like to keep it consistent.
No TALLOC_FREE() actually adds something good, it makes the pointer NULL after it is freed. This is very important in a code base like that of samba3 which have not grown up with talloc as a programming paradigm, I have not realized that before reading the last mails. So for samba3 I think you are right, and TALLOC_FREE() does really make sense to be used. I'll commit a fix for that in the next hours, gotta go now. Simo. -- Simo Sorce Samba Team GPL Compliance Officer email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://samba.org