From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50193-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25161 invoked by alias); 8 Aug 2007 22:08:40 -0000
Received: (qmail 25085 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Aug 2007 22:08:39 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:08:33 +0000
Received: (qmail 11811 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2007 22:08:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Aug 2007 22:08:31 -0000
To: msnyder@sonic.net
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] solib_open, memory leak
References: <21906.12.7.175.2.1186283848.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> 	<m3y7go47sj.fsf@codesourcery.com> 	<18682.12.7.175.2.1186597784.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> 	<m34pj9vgvr.fsf@codesourcery.com> 	<22684.12.7.175.2.1186610277.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net>
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 22:08:00 -0000
In-Reply-To: <22684.12.7.175.2.1186610277.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> (msnyder@sonic.net's message of "Wed, 8 Aug 2007 14:57:57 -0700 (PDT)")
Message-ID: <m3hcn9isrk.fsf@codesourcery.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00166.txt.bz2


msnyder@sonic.net writes:
> [Jim:]
>> The code clearly deserves a comment like:
>>
>>     /* We try to find the library in various ways.  After each
>>        attempt, either found_file >= 0 and temp_pathname is a malloc'd
>>        string, or found_file < 0 and temp_pathname does not point to
>>        storage that needs to be freed.  */
>>
>> In that light, it seems clearer to me to just put:
>>
>>    if (found_file < 0)
>>      temp_pathname = NULL;
>>    else
>>      temp_pathname = xstrdup (temp_pathname);
>>
>> immediately after the open, to make it obvious that the rule is
>> followed there.
>>
> [...]
>> Don't you want those new lines to replace the two that followed them,
>> not just precede them?
>
> Yes, thanks.  How about this?

Poifect.