Re: [PATCH] Fix memory function use

[Rocco Rutte <pdmef@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

* Brendan Cully [06-05-02 13:25:30 -0700] wrote:

> 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.

If I recall correctly, some years ago there was:

  safe_free (void**);
  #define FREE(X)       safe_free((void**)(X))

just to avoid having to write all the casts manually.

Now it's even more dangerous since safe_free() dereferences its 
pointers without a big fat warning somewhere. In fact, before adding the 
check_sec.sh checks I though about just adding a note somewhere but 
couldn't really find an accurate place for it...

Now for "core" mutt this isn't interesting IMHO, just for people who 
write patches.

I've removed the PATCHES/check_sec.sh changes and saved it as 'p1' in 
that directory which only replaces safe_free() by FREE().

Personally, I'd rather take to the time to double-check the use and keep 
the check_sec.sh part since the first chunk in muttlib.c really looks 
like a bug which could have been found that way. (and check_sec.sh would 
only complain if there's no ampersand before the operator to FREE() so 
not all FREE() calls are affected)

  bye, Rocco
--
:wq!