Can someone clarify this comment.

A person from England had posted the following code snippet.

Code:

unsigned char *loadbmp(const char *fname, int *width, int *height)
{
  FILE *fp;
  int err;
  unsigned char *answer;
  /* open file in binary mode */
   fp = fopen(fname, "rb");
   if(!fp)
     return 0;

  /* get all the information we need for the header */
  err = loadheader(fp, &width, &height);

  /*
    in this code we allocate memory for the raster, and load it.
    we have to be careful to clean up if we encounter error condtions.
  */
  if(err == 0)
  {
     answer = malloc(width * height * 3);
     if(answer)
        err = loadraster(fp, answer, width, height);
     if(err != 0)
     {
        free(answer);
        answer = 0;
     }
  }
  else
     answer = 0;

  fclose(fp);

}

Shortly after that, someone made the following response.

"Having defined the function as returning an unsigned char* would not
returning one be a good idea? Possibly return answer since otherwise you
have lost the memory? "

I tried asking both of these people, via email to clarify this comment. Neither one responded. So can someone here please elaborate on this comment.

The function prototype is:

Code:

unsigned char *loadbmp(const char *fname, int *width, int *height);

The "unsigned char *" part means that the function is defined to return a pointer to an unsigned char. As you can see, the person that wrote this function has a variable of this type named answer. The memory it points to, if any, is dynamically allocated by malloc(). Most likely, the intent of the programmer was to return answer right after closing the file fp.

If memory is dynamically allocated in a function, and not returned and free()ed later or free()ed inside the function, then you have a memory leak, since all memory malloc()ed must also be free()ed. Since the memory in this particular function is not necessarily free()ed inside the function, and it's not returned either, if this compiled, you would lose the address of the block of memory that malloc() returned. That's obviously wrong to do and what the person responding was referring to.

And somewhere in the back of my head, my inner child is telling me

"Psst...you missed a very subtle point about malloc() in the Second Edition of the book 'The C Programming Language' by Kernighan and Richtie."

Okay, I'm babbling. Thanks for the response.