On Tuesday, 02 May 2006 at 12:24, Rocco Rutte wrote: > Hi, > > the patch at: > > <http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~pdmef/mutt/patches/pdmef+fix+mem.diff> > > fixes the use of mutt's memory function wrappers, namely safe_free(). > > First, it replaces some calls by FREE() and adds some checks to > check_sec.sh since the first chunk in the diff for muttlib.c looks like > it fixes a bug. Thus, the checks can make sense, IMHO. This also may be > useful for people (like me) who run mutt with patches to check the > patches used and notify the authors. > > Note that I only added the checks to check_sec.sh, I didn't add the > required comments to the sources affected to make it ignore the > warnings. One of the committers should that (but I can do it, too). I never got the point of FREE vs safe_free - I don't see it as a bug to use safe_free, though it is an inconsistency. (In fact I generally prefer inline functions to macros.) So I'd rather not get spammed by check_sec warnings. This patch would be nicer if it either: a) didn't have the check_sec hunk, or b) updated all the safe_frees in vanilla mutt to use FREE (does this patch do this? I haven't actually tried applying it) I don't see a good reason to deliberately use safe_free instead of FREE at the moment (or vv). Is there one? If not, the SAFE_FREE_CHECKED bit is probably unnecessary...
Description: PGP signature