RFR-8008118 (original) (raw)

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Thu Mar 21 17:10:27 UTC 2013

Please revert this formatting change:

I would not introduce variable k and just count down from i, like this:

if (pathv[i] == NULL) { for (i--; i >= 0; i--) free(pathv[i]); return NULL; }

which looks a little cleaner.

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 8:53 AM, John Zavgren <john.zavgren at oracle.com>wrote:

All: I modified the splitPath() procedure so that when it encounters an OOM error it frees allocated memory before exiting.

Thanks! John http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8008118/webrev.03/ ----- Original Message ----- From: martinrb at google.com To: chris.hegarty at oracle.com Cc: john.zavgren at oracle.com, core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:32:39 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: RFR-8008118

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com>wrote: Martin, I take your point about the other allocations, but as you say OOM is better than SEGV. So possibly good enough? Ah, Thanks Chris, I had forgotten that NEW does throw OOME. If NEW returns NULL, then there will be a pending OOM on the stack. good point! In that case, this is indeed a clear improvement, and I leave it to John whether to undo the allocations in splitPath before returning. Just add that space after "if", please, before you submit!

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list