From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:03:59 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Correct conditions to free textconv result data
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BWgDFq_Dv=omkpDBa_pUF7zKr9cFftNL-KxtMcTkc5-w@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160222181224.GA4917@sigill.intra.peff.net>

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
>
>> Is there a case I'm missing here where we actually leak memory or try to
>> free non-allocated memory? I didn't see it.
>
> By the way, I saw only patches 2/3 and 3/3 on the list. So maybe there
> is something interesting going on in 1/3, or in a cover letter that
> didn't make it. :)

The only thing common in this series is it's the result of
-Wwrite-strings. 1/3 changes some "char *" to "const char *", you
don't miss anything.
-- 
Duy