From: Johan Herland Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:05:11 GMT Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/21] Free mktag's buffer before dying Message-ID: <200706100005.11710.johan@herland.net> In-Reply-To: <81b0412b0706091500o2c0a8f88xd3808d6ee790d777@mail.gmail.com> On Sunday 10 June 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > On 6/9/07, Johan Herland wrote: > > On Saturday 09 June 2007, Alex Riesen wrote: > > > On 6/9/07, Johan Herland wrote: > > > > + if (parse_and_verify_tag_buffer(0, buffer, size, 1)) { > > > > + free(buffer); > > > > + die("invalid tag data file"); > > > > > > This, and the similar one below are useless. You're destroying the > > > process, what do you free that buffer for? Either handle the error > > > case or do not needlessly complicate your change, which really > > > also absolutely unneeded. > > > > Well, I was taught to treat my memory with care. > > How do you treat your performance? Hopefully with care, as well. However, I tend to look at performance _after_ correctness. > Besides, was that systems with common address space > where you were taught? Like DOS or MacOS, perhaps? Nope. Never programmed on either. I thought care with memory was generally considered a good principle. If I'm wrong, please point me at the relevant documentation. > > Right now it doesn't make any difference in practice (except that > > Valgrind might be a bit happier with it), but in the future -- with > > the libifaction effort and whatnot -- you never know what might happen > > to this piece of code, and I'd like to stay on the safe side. > > So that people have to check your free as well (they will have to, > they come looking for die-calls). You just made more work for them. Ok. Drop it. This isn't particularily important to me. I just try to follow good principles when I can. ...Johan -- Johan Herland, www.herland.net