On Dec 13, 2011, at 7:59 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> Sorry, late to the discussion. This is a spurious warning caused by
> passing the NULL pointer to the opal free function which is actually ok.
> It was fixed by #2884 - this is why you don't see the problem in trunk.
I have a dim recollection that we talked about this before, but I'm going to ask again, anyway...
Why are we removing this debug message? It seems like a useful thing. It might well be legal to call free(NULL), but it seems like a bad idea to call free if we know the value will be NULL.
Did we talk about this before, and I was in the minority for thinking removing it was a bad idea?
For corporate legal information go to: