On Jan 1 2007 22:40, Ingo Oeser wrote:
>On Monday, 1. January 2007 17:25, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> Ingo Oeser <[email protected]> writes:
>> > Then this works, because the side effect (+20) is evaluated only once.
>>
>> It's not a side effect, it's a non-lvalue, and you can't take the address
>> of a non-lvalue.
>
>Just verified this. So If we cannot make it work in all cases, it will
>cause more problems then it will solve.
>
>So we are left with a function, which will
>a) only be used by janitors to provide "kfree(x); x = NULL;"
> with an macro KFREE(x) in all the simple cases.
Just checking, where has it been decided that we actually are going to have
kfree_nullify() or whatever the end result happens to be called?
Thanks,
-`J'
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
