RFR-8008118 (original) (raw)

Mark Sheppard mark.sheppard at oracle.com
Fri Mar 22 12:52:33 UTC 2013

Hi John, in the cleanup, would it be necessary to free the allocated pathv array also, prior to return? if I'm not misreading.

Also, rather than storing the pointer to the string literal, malloc (NEW) and memcpy as per the other entries. This will avoid potential conflict should other code attempt to release the pathv, which would be unaware of it containing the string literal. (Who cleans up pathv after it has been used?)

regards Mark On 21/03/2013 18:36, John Zavgren wrote:

All:

How does this look? 1.) I reverted the for statement formatting change. 2.) I removed the goto statement and "inlined" some code instead. 3.) I checked to make sure that we're not freeing memory that we didn't actually allocate. (Path vector elements that are empty.)

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jzavgren/8008118/webrev.04/ John ----- Original Message ----- From: christos at zoulas.com To: martinrb at google.com, john.zavgren at oracle.com Cc: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 2:00:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: RFR-8008118 On Mar 21, 10:10am, martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) wrote: -- Subject: Re: RFR-8008118 | Please revert this formatting change: | | - for (q = p; (*q != ':') && (*q != '\0'); q++) | - ; | + for (q = p; (*q != ':') && (*q != '\0'); q++); | + | Stylistically I prefer: for (q = p; (*q != ':') && (*q != '\0'); q++) continue; so that re-formatting accidents don't happen, and the intent is clearly communicated. christos

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list