On Tue, 17 Apr 2018 09:50:49 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Sure, here's an updated diff. It also moves the FRELE(9) in the error
> loop down as suggested by visa@.
OK millert@
- todd
On 16/04/18(Mon) 09:09, Todd C. Miller wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:19:40 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
>
> > Diff below does FREF(9) earlier instead of incrementing `f_count' by hand.
> >
> > The error path is also updated to call FRELE(9) accordingly.
>
> Wouldn't it be less error prone to
On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:19:40 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Diff below does FREF(9) earlier instead of incrementing `f_count' by hand.
>
> The error path is also updated to call FRELE(9) accordingly.
Wouldn't it be less error prone to simply add:
if (fp != NULL)
