Hi, * Brendan Cully [06-05-03 12:00:59 -0700] wrote:
On Tuesday, 02 May 2006 at 22:36, Thomas Roessler wrote:
I don't feel particularly strongly either way, but do think the code should be consistent.
Ok, how about we use
# define FREE(x) safe_free(&(x))
and have check_sec look out for safe_free without __SAFE_FREE_CHECKED__ ?
That sounds okay to me. But still I see problems with all the patches out there. Maybe it's an option to introduce the change along with mutt 1.5.12 so people are forced to have a closer look at their patches when porting them...
bye, Rocco -- :wq!