Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >> If we have a big common clean-up after each operation, then, falling >> through in the success case might be good, but that is not what I am >> seeing here. So... >> > > I would like to see some kind of free(head) in a clean-up to not get > distracted with that. Not a proper leak though and the leak checkers > does not refer to that as leak. So not important. We can go with the > unconditional return and let the dust settle. "head" is not leaking, as a pointer to it is head in a location that is still in scope (namely, a file-scope global variable) when the program exits. In fact, the only thing the code before or after this patch does after leaving this top-level if/elseif/else cascade is to return 0 and doing nothing else. Inserting free(head) would be an unneeded distraction for human developers (doing such a patch, reviewing, and even worse, having to read the resulting code in the coming years) and waste of computer resources (exiting the process will reclaim such a piece of memory just fine).
