Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belón <carenas@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> A slightly shorter fix would be to replace "tck" with "mem". Not as
>> obvious without further context, though.
>
> so something like this on top?
> Carlo
> ---- > 8 ----
> diff --git a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> index edb438a777..14e8c4df4f 100644
> --- a/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> +++ b/compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.c
> @@ -510,7 +510,15 @@ static void threadcache_free(nedpool *p, threadcache *tc, int mymspace, void *me
> assert(idx<=THREADCACHEMAXBINS);
> if(tck==*binsptr)
> {
> - fprintf(stderr, "Attempt to free already freed memory block %p - aborting!\n", (void *)tck);
> + /*
> + * Original code used tck instead of mem, but that was changed
> + * to workaround a pedantic warning from mingw64 gcc 10.3 that
> + * requires %p to have a explicit (void *) as a parameter.
> + *
> + * This might seem to be a compiler bug or limitation that
> + * should be changed back if fixed for maintanability.
> + */
> + fprintf(stderr, "Attempt to free already freed memory block %p - aborting!\n", mem);
> abort();
> }
The new comment explains why the original (i.e. unadorned 'tck'),
which should work fine, needs to be changed. The reason is because
a version of compiler wants an explict (void *) cast to go with the
placeholder "%p".
Given that, it would be much better to pass (void *)tck instead of
mem, no? Especially since the comment does not say tck and mem have
the same pointer value.
Having said lal that, I have to wonder if how much help the
developer who is hunting for allocation bug is getting out of a raw
pointer value in this message, though.
