On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Again, this check is not necessary. If I read the code correctly the > pointer could be uninitialized at that point, though, causing free(3) to > crash. yep, this patch is bogus.
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 6:38 AM, René Scharfe <l.s.r@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Again, this check is not necessary. If I read the code correctly the > pointer could be uninitialized at that point, though, causing free(3) to > crash. yep, this patch is bogus.