On Sunday 10 June 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
> On 6/9/07, Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Saturday 09 June 2007, Alex Riesen wrote:
> > > On 6/9/07, Johan Herland <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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, <johan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
www.herland.net
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
