>> That is why the "fs" variable in process_file is declared "static", and why
>> I wrote "some hidden awkwarness".
>>
>> I did want to avoid a malloc because then who would free the struct?
>> addScript cannot to it systematically because builtins are static. Or it
>> would have to create an on purpose struct, but I then that would be more
>> awkwarness, and malloc/free to pass arguments between functions is not
>> efficient nor very elegant.
>>
>> So the "static" option looked like the simplest & most elegant version.
>
> Surely that trick breaks if you have more than one -f switch, no? Oh, I
> see what you're doing: you only use the command list, which is
> allocated, so it doesn't matter that the rest of the struct changes
> later.
The two fields that matter (desc and commands) are really copied into
sql_scripts, so what stays in the is overriden if used another time.
> I'm not concerned about freeing the struct; what's the problem with it
> surviving until the program terminates?
It is not referenced anywhere so it is a memory leak.
> If somebody specifies thousands of -f switches, they will waste a few
> bytes with each, but I'm hardly concerned about a few dozen kilobytes
> there ...
Ok, so you prefer a memory leak. I hate it on principle.
Here is a v23 with a memory leak anyway.
--
Fabien.