=== on 3 Feb 2016, 19:58:36 Ann Campbell wrote:
\[~freddy.mallet], what you've edited the description to say was my initial understanding of this problem, but every reference I could find said that a double free would https://cwe.mitre.org/data/definitions/415.html[corrupt the program's memory management data structures]. None of them said that it "only" made the memory available for reallocation.

=== on 3 Feb 2016, 22:03:06 Freddy Mallet wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] the program's memory management data structures becomes corrupted because just after the first call to the free() statement this part of the heap memory can immediately be reused/reorganised for any other purpose. So by releasing twice the same memory location, you end up with a memory location used concurrently for two fully different purposes -> crash.

=== on 30 Mar 2016, 14:52:05 Ann Campbell wrote:
Eventually this rule should cover both double ``++free++`` _and_ double ``++delete++`` but the initial implementation will just be for C.

=== on 27 Jul 2016, 13:32:23 Freddy Mallet wrote:
Euh for me [~ann.campbell.2], there is no doubt about the fact that this is a blocker BUG and not a blocker Code Smell.

=== on 27 Jul 2016, 14:24:51 Ann Campbell wrote:
You're right, of course [~freddy.mallet]. I struggle a little with the UI.

