From: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 2015 19:41:22 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] checkout-index.c: Unconditionally free memory
Message-ID: <CAPig+cR7V+9JLsCiJ_kmUBJc8_1Wwn6=O7uxQSEbogOGFKj8FQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPig+cQr5wQ6nfy90+SWyFFv0Neq4oJiEtur4cBJNGHNKXhZrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com> wrote:
>> It's safe to free the char pointer `p` unconditionally.
>>
>> The pointer is assigned just 2 lines earlier as a return from
>> prefix_path, which allocates new memory for its return value.
>>
>> Then it is used in checkout_file, which passes the pointer on to
>> cache_name_pos and write_tempfile_record, both of which do not store
>> the pointer in any permanent record.
>>
>> So the condition on when to free the pointer is just "always".
>
> Why doesn't the 'p' in the 'while' loop just below deserve the same treatment?

Ditto update-index.c:do_unresolved().