From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15800 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2007 22:43:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 15789 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2007 22:43:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:43:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 633A7982A2; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:43:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419289817E; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:43:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I42hO-0003Hu-OU; Thu, 28 Jun 2007 18:42:50 -0400 Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 22:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: msnyder@sonic.net Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [OB] cli/cli-script.c, null ptr guard Message-ID: <20070628224250.GB12578@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: msnyder@sonic.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <13902.12.7.175.2.1183067383.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> <20070628215829.GA10350@caradoc.them.org> <6989.12.7.175.2.1183069038.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6989.12.7.175.2.1183069038.squirrel@webmail.sonic.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-06/txt/msg00505.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 03:17:18PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote: > > No, I don't think this is obvious. What does it mean to have a null > > string here and how can it happen? I'm pretty sure it can't, and the > > if check is just clutter. > > The reasoning is that, since we checked it for NULL in the > first statement of the function, we must believe that the > possibility exists for it to be NULL. Right. So, is it a sensible check? Or should it be removed, or should the condition for the error be simplified? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery