>From the patch it seems that the called "dangling" pointers shouldn't be
used anymore, then it is correct to leave them like that. If you still use
them, valgrind will warn.
things like:
+ free(eth->file);
+ free(eth->key);
free(eth);
the fil
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 04:24:13PM +, Michael Blumenkrantz wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Leandro Dorileo
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Maxime,
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > here is a patch.
> > >
> > > 1. free() already null-checks the
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Leandro Dorileo wrote:
> Hi Maxime,
>
> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > Hi,
> > here is a patch.
> >
> > 1. free() already null-checks the passed argument, so it is not
> >necessary to do 'if(x) free(x)'.
>
>
> Isn't that rea
Hi Maxime,
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:07:13PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> here is a patch.
>
> 1. free() already null-checks the passed argument, so it is not
>necessary to do 'if(x) free(x)'.
Isn't that reasoneable to replace if (x) free(x) by E_FREE(x)?
Regards.
>
> 2. Mo
in
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Hi,
> here is a patch.
>
> 1. free() already null-checks the passed argument, so it is not
>necessary to do 'if(x) free(x)'.
>
> 2. Moved some '{free(x); x = NULL}' to E_FREE.
>
> 3. In e_start_main.c, 'buf' is allocated with the si
Hi,
here is a patch.
1. free() already null-checks the passed argument, so it is not
necessary to do 'if(x) free(x)'.
2. Moved some '{free(x); x = NULL}' to E_FREE.
3. In e_start_main.c, 'buf' is allocated with the size of the
two arguments + '=', so we don't need to check for lenght;
w
