Re: [PATCH v5] branch: support for shortcuts like @{-1}, completed

> Rubén Justo <rjusto@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> If we have a big common clean-up after each operation, then, falling
>>> through in the success case might be good, but that is not what I am
>>> seeing here.  So...
>>>
>>
>> I would like to see some kind of free(head) in a clean-up to not get
>> distracted with that.  Not a proper leak though and the leak checkers
>> does not refer to that as leak.  So not important.  We can go with the
>> unconditional return and let the dust settle.
> 
> "head" is not leaking, as a pointer to it is head in a location that
> is still in scope (namely, a file-scope global variable) when the
> program exits.
> 
> In fact, the only thing the code before or after this patch does
> after leaving this top-level if/elseif/else cascade is to return 0
> and doing nothing else.  Inserting free(head) would be an unneeded
> distraction for human developers (doing such a patch, reviewing, and
> even worse, having to read the resulting code in the coming years)
> and waste of computer resources (exiting the process will reclaim
> such a piece of memory just fine).
>