Stefan Beller <sbel...@google.com> writes: >> The above does somewhat more than advertised and was a bit hard to >> grok. Initially I thought the reason why pathdup()s were delayed >> was perhaps because you pathdup() something potentially different >> from the given parameter to the function (i.e. new code before >> pathdup() may tweak what is pathdup()ed). >> >> But that is not what is happening. I suspect that you did this to >> avoid leaking allocated memory when the code calls die(). > > That is not what is happening, either.
That's a good sign that you need a bit more in the log message.
