According to Ian Beckwith on 1/6/2010 6:05 PM: >> during build of coreutils-8.1: >> >> at-func2.c: In function 'at_func2': >> at-func2.c:113: warning: attempt to free a non-heap object 'proc_buf1' >> >> IMO, the right fix is >> >> --- lib/at-func2.c >> +++ lib/at-func2.c >> @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ >> } >> } >> else if (proc_file1 != proc_buf1 && proc_file1 != file1) >> - free (proc_buf1); >> + free (proc_file1);
Ouch. Yes, that is the correct fix for my typo. Applied, in Petr's name. > PS In general, would you prefer separate messages for each bug? Yes, it is easier (at least for me) to do bookkeeping for outstanding bugs if they are in separate threads. For example, I've just patched only 1 of the three issues (across four interfaces) that you reported. -- Don't work too hard, make some time for fun as well! Eric Blake e...@byu.net
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
