Use after talloc_free...

Stefan (metze) Metzmacher metze at
Thu Nov 12 06:19:41 MST 2009

Rusty Russell schrieb:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:08:10 pm simo wrote:
>> On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 12:28 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> See previous mail detailing my reservations about NULL-ing and implicit
>>> arg modifying tho...
>> What's wrong with "implicit" arg modifying ?
> In C, fn(x) can't modify x.  If it does, it's a hell of a surprise to the
> reader.  That's why TALLOC_FREE has to shout that it's a macro, but it's
> still a poor warning that magic is happening.
>> I mean that's the only reason to use TALLOC_FREE(), it's not like you
>> are going to be confused about that, or are you ?
> *I* know it, but what about everyone else reading talloc-using code?
> (Hopefully, that will be most hackers in the universe RSN ;)
> And I think *everyone* should be using the safer variant of free (whatever
> it's called) for it to be effective.  It should be clear that it's preferred,
> and TALLOC_FREE is ugly.
> If we were doing talloc from scratch, we should make talloc_free() destroy
> its arg and have some lesser variant for where that's not possible.
> We could be daring and call the new variant tfree()?

No it should really have talloc_ as prefix...


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the samba-technical mailing list