Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/mkfifo mkfifo.c
On Wed(02)/Mar/05 - , Chris Pressey wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:07:06 -0800 (PST)
> Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > :
> > :liamfoy 2005/03/02 09:32:06 PST
> > :
> > :DragonFly src repository
> > :
> > : Modified files:
> > : usr.bin/mkfifo mkfifo.c
> > : Log:
> > : - Make sure we free() 'modep' after setmode()
> > : - Add stdlib.h for both free() and exit()
> > :
> > : Revision Changes Path
> > : 1.5 +3 -1 src/usr.bin/mkfifo/mkfifo.c
> > :
> > :
> > :http://www.dragonflybsd.org/cvsweb/src/usr.bin/mkfifo/mkfifo.c.diff?
> > r1=1.4&r2=1.5&f=u
> >
> > It's about to exit, there's no reason to free(modep), it just
> > wastes cycles unnecessarily.
>
> There's one reason: setting a good example. If someone, say, copies
> this code into an unbounded loop in their own program, they'll leak
> memory if they don't free modep. Not that programmers should blindly
> copy example code without reading the appropriate manual pages, every
> little bit helps.
I actually agree here. I would much prefere to see free(). Also, wouldnt
exit() use the cycles that free() would anyway?
If this view is taken, I can show you 'MUCH' more code that does exactly
this. (Example: ln). This is why I thought it was the accepted practice.
>
> And considering it's only one structure being freed (and not, say, a
> complicated cyclic graph-like structure), the waste of cycles involved
> in freeing it is pretty minor.
>
> Just my 2c.
>
> -Chris
--
- Liam J. Foy
<liamfoy@sepulcrum.org>
http://www.bsd-systems.co.uk
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 7 之 10 篇)：