On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 11:33 AM Sebastian Huber <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > On 17/04/2020 19:30, Gedare Bloom wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 2:11 AM Sebastian Huber > <sebastian.hu...@embedded-brains.de> wrote: > > Close #3953. > --- > c-user/user_extensions.rst | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/c-user/user_extensions.rst b/c-user/user_extensions.rst > index c3bd1c6..89b86fd 100644 > --- a/c-user/user_extensions.rst > +++ b/c-user/user_extensions.rst > @@ -466,6 +466,8 @@ DIRECTIVE STATUS CODES: > > * - ``RTEMS_SUCCESSFUL`` > - extension set created successfully > + * - ``RTEMS_INVALID_ADDRESS`` > + - ``table`` or ``id`` are NULL > > This is OK, I guess there are no other valid checks that are made on > addresses usually. > > As we continue to improve our processes, it may be worth considering > the use of well-defined regions and symbol ranges to provide > additional sanity checks on address pointers, maybe. I'm just > ruminating. > > Actually I think that all these NULL pointer checks are completely > superfluous. However, since most RTEMS APIs have them I thought it would be > consistent to add this also here.
I agree in the sense that they should probably be DEBUG filtered. They are overhead/wasteful for well-developed applications. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
