On 2020-01-07 at 01:08:09, brian m. carlson wrote: > Unfortunately, compilers have gotten much more aggressive about assuming > that undefined behavior never occurs and rewriting code based on that. > clang is not as bad about doing that, but GCC is very aggressive about > it. There are multiple instances where NULL pointer checks have been > optimized out because the compiler exploited undefined behavior to > assume a pointer was never NULL. > > In this case, the only case in which we can safely assume that this > behavior is acceptable is that r is NULL, in which case C11 tells us > that "no action occurs" due to the free. So the compiler could just > optimize this out to a "return 0". Just because it doesn't now doesn't > mean we can assume it won't in the future, so we do need to fix this. > > I'll send a patch. Oof, I just realized that you had tagged this with "[Outreachy]", which means that you were probably planning on sending a patch to fix this, and then I went and did it instead, so let me apologize for doing that. I sent it because oftentimes we say "we should fix this thing" and then never do it because nobody sends a patch, but in this case I should have paid more attention and waited for you to respond and send one instead. Again, sorry about that. -- brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
