John Nemeth --> current-users (2005-07-29 04:03:47 -0700):
>      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.

Sure, that's why I wrote "possible problem" (I possibly should have
written "potential problem" instead). Just in case login_close(3) is
somewhen changed to set `lc = NULL;' after `free(lc);'. I don't know
how like this is, though...


Regards, Jukka

-- 
bashian roulette:
$ ((RANDOM%6)) || rm -rf ~