I don't have the code before me right now and made my comments based on
the diff you proveded. You sure can free() cp before assigning it to
tmp_cp. That should work too. Unless it points to a static memory block
or memory on the stock. As I said, I don't have a source code here. But
should be able to determine if it is safe to free() cp considering the
above.
Regards,
--
Timour Ezeev
Pivotal Dynamics
timour@pivotaldynamics.com
V: 305.406.9904
F: 305.406.9689
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004, Mark Cullen wrote:
> Mark Cullen wrote:
>> Timour Ezeev wrote:
>>
>>> I think you got small memory leak there IMHO (either tmp_cp is not
>>> used
>>> but allocated or cp is lost).
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think I see what you mean with the tmp_cp allocated but not used. I
>> don't think I get you on the cp is lost part though. Is the attached
>> better?
>>
>> Also, where would I put the free() exactly? I forgot about that..
>
> Actually, would I free(cp) just before reassigning cp to tmp_cp? Then
> assuming cp got free'd later on in the code would that then be free'ing
> tmp_cp? I'm guessing it wouldn't work quite like that, would it?
>
>