On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 03:05:26PM +0200, Nicolas Joly wrote:
> One possibility could be to not free memory at all in setenv, but only
> with unsetenv.
I'm not convinced about that.
> IMHO, it's a programmer error to call setenv more than once on the
> same variable without a corresponding unsetenv in between (just like
> malloc()/free() behaviour).
Is there any standard which backs this statement?
> Otherwise, if i understand things
> correctly, it's more putenv that shoud work that way.
Our putenv(3) is implemented via setenv(3).
Kind regards
--
Matthias Scheler http://zhadum.org.uk/
