Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> It is a bit sad that
>
> - if (E)
> FREE_AND_NULL(E);
>
> is not sufficient to catch it. Shouldn't we be doing the same for
> regular free(E) as well? IOW, like the attached patch.
> ...
And revised even more to also spell "E" as "E != NULL" (and "!E" as
"E == NULL"), which seems to make a difference, which is even more
sad. I do not want to wonder if I have to also add "NULL == E" and
other variants, so I'll stop here.
contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+)
diff --git a/contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci b/contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci
index 4490069df9..29ca98796f 100644
--- a/contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci
+++ b/contrib/coccinelle/free.cocci
@@ -16,3 +16,63 @@ expression E;
- free(E);
+ FREE_AND_NULL(E);
- E = NULL;
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E)
+ FREE_AND_NULL(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E != NULL)
+ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E == NULL)
+ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E != NULL)
+ FREE_AND_NULL(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E) { free(E); }
++ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (!E) { free(E); }
++ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E) { FREE_AND_NULL(E); }
++ FREE_AND_NULL(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E != NULL) { free(E); }
++ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E == NULL) { free(E); }
++ free(E);
+
+@@
+expression E;
+@@
+- if (E != NULL) { FREE_AND_NULL(E); }
++ FREE_AND_NULL(E);
