On Dec 19,  7:33am, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
} Hubert Feyrer wrote:
} > On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Jukka Salmi wrote:
} > 
} >> I'm talking about the [1]changes made to src/usr.sbin/user/user.c
} >> between revisions 1.81 and 1.82, committed by christos, including
} >> "patches from Liam Foy" (was there a PR?).
} > 
} > ...
} > 
} >> The attached patch fixes both problems.
} > 
} > I see. Would it be possible to rewrite
} > 
} > +       ret = lc != NULL;
} > 
} > as something like
} >     ret = (lc == NULL)?1:0;
} > 
} > ? It's more readable IMHO.
} 
} Well, that's a matter of taste.  I find the latter more difficult to
} read.  Possibly
} 	ret = (lc != NULL);

     I think more to the point, it is irrelevant that the pointer has
been freed.  It will still contain the same value.  The freeing
function can not modify the pointer itself; therefore, the second half
of the patch is completely unnecessary.  Trying to use the data pointed
to by the pointer would be wrong; however, the original code doesn't do
this, it merely compares the pointer to NULL.

}-- End of excerpt from Lennart Augustsson