On Sat, Feb 20, 2021 at 02:09:45PM +0100, Tim Düsterhus wrote: > 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)`.
Good point, I didn't remember :-) Thanks! Willy
