On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 04:02:37PM -0700, David Schultz wrote: > > I don't really care one way or the other, but regardless of what > the manpage says, reallocf()'s semantics should probably match the > way it's already used. Maybe what I found was an isolated bug and > reallocf() DTRT already. In that case, the patch I posted should > probably be applied.
Could you please explain exactly how the original code leaks memory? Maybe I'm being dense today but I just don't see it. If reallocf returns NULL the original buffer has been freed. -- Barney Wolff I'm available by contract or FT: http://www.databus.com/bwresume.pdf To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
