fixed erroneous memory access to newurl in alpm_db_remove_server
On 31/07/12 05:57, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Barbu Paul - Gheorghe <barbu.paul.gheorghe@gmail.com>
> ---
> lib/libalpm/db.c | 10 +++++++---
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/libalpm/db.c b/lib/libalpm/db.c
> index bf9c3f0..26b6250 100644
> --- a/lib/libalpm/db.c
> +++ b/lib/libalpm/db.c
> @@ -198,16 +198,20 @@ int SYMEXPORT alpm_db_remove_server(alpm_db_t *db, const char *url)
> if(!newurl) {
> return -1;
> }
> +
> db->servers = alpm_list_remove_str(db->servers, newurl, &vdata);
> - free(newurl);
> +
> + int ret = 1;
Our current coding standard is to declare all variables at the start of
the block.
> if(vdata) {
> _alpm_log(db->handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG, "removed server URL from database '%s': %s
",
> db->treename, newurl);
> free(vdata);
Instead of creating a new variable, why not just free(newurl) here and
keep the return?
> - return 0;
> + ret = 0;
> }
>
> - return 1;
> + free(newurl);
> + return ret;
> }
>
> /** Get the name of a package database. */
>
07-31-2012, 06:01 AM
Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
fixed erroneous memory access to newurl in alpm_db_remove_server
Our current coding standard is to declare all variables at the start of
the block.
if(vdata) {
_alpm_log(db->handle, ALPM_LOG_DEBUG, "removed server URL from database '%s': %s
",
db->treename, newurl);
free(vdata);
Instead of creating a new variable, why not just free(newurl) here and
keep the return?
The reason behind this is that I didn't want to have two calls to free(newurl)
for each execution branch (the same applies for the return statement).
Should I modify it with two calls or should I leave it this way and just fix the
coding standard violation that you mentioned above?
Have a nice day!
--
Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
Common sense is not so common - Voltaire
Visit My GitHub profile to see my open-source projects - https://github.com/paullik
08-08-2012, 08:00 AM
Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
fixed erroneous memory access to newurl in alpm_db_remove_server
On 07/31/2012 09:01 AM, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe wrote:
Instead of creating a new variable, why not just free(newurl) here and
keep the return?
The reason behind this is that I didn't want to have two calls to free(newurl)
for each execution branch (the same applies for the return statement).
Should I modify it with two calls or should I leave it this way and just fix the
coding standard violation that you mentioned above?
Have a nice day!
What should I do?
Did anyone looked into my argument yet?
--
Barbu Paul - Gheorghe
Common sense is not so common - Voltaire
Visit My GitHub profile to see my open-source projects - https://github.com/paullik
08-09-2012, 03:59 AM
Allan McRae
fixed erroneous memory access to newurl in alpm_db_remove_server
On 08/08/12 18:00, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe wrote:
> On 07/31/2012 09:01 AM, Barbu Paul - Gheorghe wrote:
>>> Instead of creating a new variable, why not just free(newurl) here and
>>> keep the return?
>>
>> The reason behind this is that I didn't want to have two calls to
>> free(newurl)
>> for each execution branch (the same applies for the return statement).
>>
>> Should I modify it with two calls or should I leave it this way and
>> just fix the
>> coding standard violation that you mentioned above?
>>
>> Have a nice day!
>>
>
> What should I do?
> Did anyone looked into my argument yet?
>
fixed erroneous memory access to newurl in alpm_db_remove_server
