On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:56:45PM -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:31:59PM -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
This patch has been checked for
> memory leaks since it almost always heap allocates a duplicate string
> instead of the = "".
>>>
>>> I see no rea
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:31:59PM -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
This patch has been checked for
> memory leaks since it almost always heap allocates a duplicate string
> instead of the = "".
I see no reason not to continue to use static string constants. Copying
them into heap-allocated
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 05:31:59PM -0700, Ross Finlayson wrote:
>> This patch has been checked for
>> > memory leaks since it almost always heap allocates a duplicate string
>> > instead of the = "".
>
> I see no reason not to continue to use static string constants. Copying
> them into heap-all
This patch has been checked for
> memory leaks since it almost always heap allocates a duplicate string
> instead of the = "".
I see no reason not to continue to use static string constants.
Copying them into heap-allocated memory instead (using "strDup()") is
inefficient and pointless.
--
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 09:13:01AM -0700, Erik Hovland wrote:
> A lot of const char* = "" calls means that g++ complains about how that
> feature is deprecated. As well as some casting and some changing of
> function declarations (socketErr). This patch has been checked for
> memory leaks since it
