Hi Andy,
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 10:16, Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:47:03AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 05:00, Andy Shevchenko
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:29:19PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:16, And
On Mon, Dec 21, 2020 at 09:47:03AM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 05:00, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:29:19PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > > On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:16, Andy Shevchenko
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's realloc() 101 to avoid `foo
Hi Andy,
On Mon, 21 Dec 2020 at 05:00, Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:29:19PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:16, Andy Shevchenko
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It's realloc() 101 to avoid `foo = realloc(foo, ...);` call
> > > due to getting a memory leak.
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 07:29:19PM -0700, Simon Glass wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:16, Andy Shevchenko
> wrote:
> >
> > It's realloc() 101 to avoid `foo = realloc(foo, ...);` call
> > due to getting a memory leak.
>
> Hmm I don't think I knew that...
When you use the same variable for the
On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 16:16, Andy Shevchenko
wrote:
>
> It's realloc() 101 to avoid `foo = realloc(foo, ...);` call
> due to getting a memory leak.
Hmm I don't think I knew that...
>
> Actually it's not clear why realloc() has been used here.
> If we shrink the array, the memcpy() overwrites it
5 matches
Mail list logo