> On Mon, 16 Apr 2018 10:19:40 +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Diff below does FREF(9) earlier instead of incrementing `f_count' by hand.
> > The error path is also updated to call FRELE(9) accordingly.
> Wouldn't it be less error prone to simply add:
> if (fp != NULL)
> FRELE(fp, p);
> to the fail label? If we get to fail, fp is either NULL or needs to
> drop a reference.
Sure, here's an updated diff. It also moves the FRELE(9) in the error
loop down as suggested by visa@.