On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 01:33:07 +0900
Daniel Juyung Seo wrote:
> You're right.
> There are 40 instances of "if (xx) free(xx);" in elementary.
> I can clean them up as well :)
> My latest hobby is to clean up codes. It's just annoying.
>
> Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:19
On 07/10/13 16:40, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:32:54 +0100
> Tom Hacohen wrote:
>
>> On 07/10/13 16:19, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
>>> the more important thing to note is that free(NULL) is a totally valid
>>> no-op, but for some reason people keep if() checking it...
>>
You're right.
There are 40 instances of "if (xx) free(xx);" in elementary.
I can clean them up as well :)
My latest hobby is to clean up codes. It's just annoying.
Daniel Juyung Seo (SeoZ)
On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Michael Blumenkrantz <
michael.blumenkra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> the more
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 16:32:54 +0100
Tom Hacohen wrote:
> On 07/10/13 16:19, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> > the more important thing to note is that free(NULL) is a totally valid
> > no-op, but for some reason people keep if() checking it...
> >
>
> Yeah, ever since c89 (apparently, I thought on
On 07/10/13 16:19, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> the more important thing to note is that free(NULL) is a totally valid no-op,
> but for some reason people keep if() checking it...
>
Yeah, ever since c89 (apparently, I thought only c99). However it's a
legacy reason, probably buggy implementatio
the more important thing to note is that free(NULL) is a totally valid no-op,
but for some reason people keep if() checking it...
On Mon, 07 Oct 2013 08:08:08 -0700
Daniel Juyung Seo wrote:
> seoz pushed a commit to branch master.
>
> http://git.enlightenment.org/core/elementary.git/commit/?id
