On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 8:32 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Duy Nguyen writes:
>
>> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>>> Which fields in candidate are safe to peek by the caller? How can a
>>> caller tell?
>>
>> To me, all fields should be valid after
>> check_repository_f
Duy Nguyen writes:
> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Which fields in candidate are safe to peek by the caller? How can a
>> caller tell?
>
> To me, all fields should be valid after
> check_repository_format_gently().
If so, free() is wrong in the first place, and FR
On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
>
>> Dangling pointers are usually bad news. Reset it back to NULL.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
>> ---
>
> Before abade65b ("setup: expose enumerated repo info", 2017-11-12),
> candidate was an o
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
> Dangling pointers are usually bad news. Reset it back to NULL.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
> ---
Before abade65b ("setup: expose enumerated repo info", 2017-11-12),
candidate was an on-stack variable local to this function, so there
was no need to do
Dangling pointers are usually bad news. Reset it back to NULL.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy
---
setup.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/setup.c b/setup.c
index 7287779642..d193bee192 100644
--- a/setup.c
+++ b/setup.c
@@ -482,7 +482,7 @@ static int chec
5 matches
Mail list logo