On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 14:32:40 -0800, Sean Chittenden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is mandatory. You can't ever not do that. In fact, I consider > > it best practice to do the following: > > I've run out of time to finish this, but, the attached patch starts to > bzero(3) all malloc(3) calls. I know this is overkill, but for the > time being, it's better to be safe than sorry. I'm alarmed at a few of > the calls in dbmail_imap_session_new(), however. Why on earth are we > malloc(3)'ing a char? The pointer is at least four bytes (depending > on your architecture), but the resulting allocation is only one byte. > Why bother at all? Why not just make self->tag a character instead of > a pointer? > > self->tag = (char *)my_malloc(sizeof(char)); > self->command = (char *)my_malloc(sizeof(char)); > self->args = (char **)my_malloc(sizeof(char **));
I don't see how this code can be right.. self->tag and self->command can both be more than 1 characters long. This looks like a bug in the 2.1 code.
