On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 08:10, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:59:04AM +0100, Stuart Brady wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
>>
>> > Cool. Please include the spatch with the commit message.
>>
>> Thanks, will do!
>
> Okay, submitted.
>
> This is
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 01:59:04AM +0100, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
> > Cool. Please include the spatch with the commit message.
>
> Thanks, will do!
Okay, submitted.
This is the first time I've used git send-email, so let me know if I'v
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 06:18:11PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
> Cool. Please include the spatch with the commit message.
Thanks, will do!
FWIW, it results in:
51 files changed, 99 insertions(+), 136 deletions(-)
I wonder if that needs splitting up at all?
> IIRC I had also problems with identi
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Stuart Brady wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:01:25PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
>>
>> The patch also slightly cleans the g_malloc0 statement which was
>> touched by that change (no type cast, easier code review).
> [...]
>> - s = (GDBRegisterState *)g_malloc0
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 10:01:25PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote:
>
> The patch also slightly cleans the g_malloc0 statement which was
> touched by that change (no type cast, easier code review).
[...]
> -s = (GDBRegisterState *)g_malloc0(sizeof(GDBRegisterState));
[...]
> +s = g_malloc0(sizeof
cppcheck report:
gdbstub.c:1781: error: Memory leak: s
Rearranging of the code avoids the leak.
The patch also slightly cleans the g_malloc0 statement which was
touched by that change (no type cast, easier code review).
Signed-off-by: Stefan Weil
---
gdbstub.c | 14 --
1 files
