Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
>> > Nowadays little code remains that is written for K&R C, and few minds
>> > program
>> > for K&R C. Therefore the "if before free" cases that are remaining are
>> > more likely to be intentional than before.
>>
>> If only that were true. I've just removed seve
Hi Jim,
> > Nowadays little code remains that is written for K&R C, and few minds
> > program
> > for K&R C. Therefore the "if before free" cases that are remaining are
> > more likely to be intentional than before.
>
> If only that were true. I've just removed several hundreds of
> such uses f
Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
>> Bruno, is it ok to remove the one in lib/clean-temp.c, below?
>
> No, it's better if the 'if (old_array != NULL)' stays there. It reminds
> the maintainer of the code of the two possible cases.
I'm surprised you think it's worth keeping that test
solely as a rem
On 07/12/2012 03:15 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> I tried it and was surprised to see that all compilers support it.
I expect the problem is what happens when you do something
like this:
#define FOO BAR
#define BAR -0
#define def defined
#define X def FOO
#if X
Does this test where FOO is defined, o
Hi Jim,
> Bruno, is it ok to remove the one in lib/clean-temp.c, below?
No, it's better if the 'if (old_array != NULL)' stays there. It reminds
the maintainer of the code of the two possible cases.
So, can you please add clean-temp.c to if_before_free_offenders_ ?
Note also that this "avoid if
Hi Paul,
> Here's a proposed patch to fix a gnulib portability bug uncovered
> with gzip 1.5.
Thanks, the patch is good. Actually when writing this code, I wondered
whether I could use '#define FOO ... defined BAR ...'. Although ISO C 99
6.10.1.(3) explicitly says that it's undefined behaviour:
