[PATCH] Remove more superfluous if(p) checks around free(p)

[Fernando Carrijo]

On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 09:16:20 -0400, Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Mikhail Gusarov <dottedmag at dottedmag.net> wrote:
> >
> > Twas brillig at 10:03:16 06.06.2010 UTC-03 when fcarrijo at yahoo.com.br
> > did gyre and gimble:
> >
> >  FC> By the way, the hunk below sounds rather fishy, right?
> >
> >  >> @@ -109,14 +107,10 @@ RRCreateOutputProperty (Atom property)
> >  >>  static void
> >  >>  RRDestroyOutputProperty (RRPropertyPtr prop)
> >  >>  {
> >  >> -    if (prop->valid_values)
> >  >> -        free(prop->valid_values);
> >  >> -    if (prop->current.data)
> >  >> -        free(prop->current.data);
> >  >> -    if (prop->pending.data)
> >  >> -        free(prop->pending.data);
> >  >> -    if (prop->valid_values)
> >  >> -        free(prop->valid_values);
> >  >> +    free(prop->valid_values);
> >  >> +    free(prop->current.data);
> >  >> +    free(prop->pending.data);
> >  >> +    free(prop->valid_values);
> >  >>      free(prop);
> >  >>  }
> >
> > Hmm, why? Prop is zero-initialized on allocation, so it's okay.
> >
> > --
> >  http://fossarchy.blogspot.com/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xorg-devel at lists.x.org: X.Org development
> > Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel
> > Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
> >
> 
> I didn't see it at first, but prop->valid_values is in there twice
> (first call to free and second-to-last). Nothing your patch did, it
> was like that already.
> 
> Matt

Yes, Matt is right.

I wasn't clear in my first mail. Sorry.