On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Zdenek Styblik <zdenek.styb...@gmail.com> wrote: > Because not every free() case needs this patch, I guess. I went > through the sources again and it looks ok to me.
Agreed.. I didn't see anything wrong with any of it, but to prove that nothing is missing is a harder question... >> I guess I just don't really see what the point of this patch is. Is >> there a bug somewhere where free'd memory is being accessed? If so, >> it's probably better to just try and fix that. > > Yes, it's based on double-free() bug. So what is the bug exactly? How do you reproduce it? Can't we just try and address that? There are lots of tools to detect double frees and that sort of thing. >> Although these changes don't really hurt anything they do clutter >> things up quite a bit and don't have any effect in 99% of the cases. >> > > I really don't see what the problem of setting pointer to NULL once it > has been freed is. It rather seems as a good practice to me. I'm not > sure about "cluttering" things either. > Well code that doesn't do anything is, to my mind, clutter. Yes, it's good practice to NULL out objects which have a non-local scope, but just setting local variables to NULL doesn't do anything and will just be optimized out. It's not a terribly big deal, but it seems better to fix the problem at hand rather than adding a large diagnostic patch to the mainline. thanks d ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar _______________________________________________ Ipmitool-devel mailing list Ipmitool-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ipmitool-devel
