On 2020-01-07 at 01:08:09, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Unfortunately, compilers have gotten much more aggressive about assuming
> that undefined behavior never occurs and rewriting code based on that.
> clang is not as bad about doing that, but GCC is very aggressive about
> it.  There are multiple instances where NULL pointer checks have been
> optimized out because the compiler exploited undefined behavior to
> assume a pointer was never NULL.
> 
> In this case, the only case in which we can safely assume that this
> behavior is acceptable is that r is NULL, in which case C11 tells us
> that "no action occurs" due to the free. So the compiler could just
> optimize this out to a "return 0".  Just because it doesn't now doesn't
> mean we can assume it won't in the future, so we do need to fix this.
> 
> I'll send a patch.

Oof, I just realized that you had tagged this with "[Outreachy]", which
means that you were probably planning on sending a patch to fix this,
and then I went and did it instead, so let me apologize for doing that.

I sent it because oftentimes we say "we should fix this thing" and then
never do it because nobody sends a patch, but in this case I should have
paid more attention and waited for you to respond and send one instead.

Again, sorry about that.
-- 
brian m. carlson: Houston, Texas, US
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204