On 7/11/17, Lucas Gabriel Vuotto <[email protected]> wrote: > This estrdup wasn't changed, potentially generating a segfault (if the codes > somehow keeps going on) at line 140 of the current, unpatched code.
Whoops, good catch. > Also, I don't see the point on keeping emalloc as it is given this changes. > It should be renamed to xmalloc (because it doesn't error out at anymore) or > completely deleted. The functions still log, so I left them. I couldn't really come up with a better name, both emalloc and xmalloc generally have the association with malloc and abort if failure. Maybe wmalloc/wstrdup?
