<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [PATCH] Fix memory function use



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...

Attachment: pgpP5HlRCEBvc.pgp
Description: PGP signature