Willy, Am 20.02.21 um 14:03 schrieb Willy Tarreau: > - I found 290 occurrences of "free(foo); foo=NULL;". I made a patch to > change them to "destroy(&foo)" to encourage resetting pointers on free > but I figured that a macro was better as it could ultimately also allow > some easy compile-time checks. However we can't call a macro "destroy" > as this conflicts with existing functions. I thought about ha_free() > but then should we call ha_free(&ptr) or ha_free(ptr) ? I tend to > prefer the former to know that it will modify ptr, but I'm pretty sure > that more often than not the second form may be used by thinking about > "free()". So I didn't merge anything and am interested in developers' > opinions on this and even alternate proposals.
Use `ha_free(&ptr)`, because we already have `istfree(&ist)`. Best regards Tim Düsterhus
