Re: [PATCH] C++ patches

[Daniel Berlin <dberlin at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner <kevinb@cygnus.com> writes:

> On Sep 6,  9:35pm, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> > I've rerun indent on the files this affects, because the formatting has
> > gotten way out of whack with the GNU standards.
> > I hope nobody minds, if somebody does, i'll undo the whitespace changes in
> > my patch
> > (diff -c3pwBb, remove the unbreaking of lines it did).
> 
> I think the generally agreed upon practice is to do two separate
> commits; the first being the actual changes you made and the second
> being the reformatting.  This way it's easier to review the first
> patch.

Works for me, i'll split it into two patches.

> 
> > Please note we now have one memory leak in lookup_symbol. The demangler
> > gives us a buffer we never free. I'd need to free it at every exit point
> > from the function, of which we have 12 right now, all of which end almost
> > the exact same way (most return fixup_symbol_section(sym), a few just
> > return sym. Is this incorrect?).
> > 
> > I'm thinking that i'll change it so we just have a label at the end, and
> > 12 gotos, rather than 12 exit points, and do the cleanup of the
> > buffer there.
> > It would make it about 50x easier for someone who needed to do something
> > that requires cleanup when we exit.
> 
> I think gotos in this case are preferable.
Okeydokey.