Re: For 1.5.9 - fixed smime-encrypt-self patch
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 09:54:10AM +0100, Christoph Ludwig wrote:
> > But I'm afraid you should use FREE() macro?
>
> Possibly. I saw that in other places safe_malloc() was used. When I looked up
> that function I also saw safe_free() so I assumed that to be the function of
> choice. If Thomas wants to include the patch I can prepare a version that
> calls FREE().
The only thing I can say is that ME once recommended FREE.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=mutt-dev&m=103920831205635&w=2
(MARC: msg 'Re: Warning from pgppubring.c')
> Out of curiosity: What is the point of the FREE() macro? It expands to a
> simple call of safe_free() whence it does not offer any added value. And I am
> used to a school of programming that avoids macros whenever possible, in
> particular macros with common names like FREE that are not prefixed by a
> project specific identifier like, e.g., MUTT_FREE.
You sound reasonable for me.
--
tamo