Re: [patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-13 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:33:59AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: Hi. You missed date.y: date.y: In function 'yyerror': date.y:497: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfree' Ups, sorry. That should do the trick. On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:43:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote:

Re: [patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-13 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Hi. You missed date.y: date.y: In function 'yyerror': date.y:497: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfree' On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 12:43:29AM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: Hi tech@, Without PGP / SMIME stuff, sorry. a couple of months ago I removed the if condition in the

Re: [patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-13 Thread Nicholas Marriott
looks good to me now, ok anyone? On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 03:43:47PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:33:59AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: Hi. You missed date.y: date.y: In function 'yyerror': date.y:497: error: implicit declaration of function 'xfree'

Re: [patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-13 Thread Nicholas Marriott
Applied now, thanks. On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:06:23PM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: looks good to me now, ok anyone? On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 03:43:47PM +0200, Fritjof Bornebusch wrote: On Sat, Jun 13, 2015 at 09:33:59AM +0100, Nicholas Marriott wrote: Hi. You missed date.y:

[patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-12 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech@, Without PGP / SMIME stuff, sorry. a couple of months ago I removed the if condition in the *xfree* function, but tedu@ suggested that it would be better to remove the *xfree* function entirely instead. If've seen there are *efree* functions in some tools, that just wrappes

[patch]rcs: remove xfree

2015-06-12 Thread Fritjof Bornebusch
Hi tech@, a couple of months ago I removed the if condition in the *xfree* function, but tedu@ suggested that it would be better to remove the *xfree* function entirely instead. If've seen there are *efree* functions in some tools, that just wrappes the free(3) function call. I'm not quite