On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:00:44PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes: > > > > > I think it might be worth just eliminating the whole idea. > > > > I kinda like the simplification ;-) An even thinner wrapper that > > calls malloc() and dies if it gets NULL, without any "try-to-free" > > logic. > > This is one of those instances where I wish we would have some reliable > data rather than having to guess whether it is a good idea or not.
I wish we did, too. If you have an idea how to collect such data, I'm all ears. In the absence of that, I've made an argument that it's probably the right thing to do, and we can see if cooking it over a release cycle introduces any complaints. That's far from perfect (in particular, I wouldn't be surprised if very few 32-bit users test non-releases), but I don't have other ideas. -Peff
