@pmatilai commented on this pull request.
> @@ -80,6 +94,33 @@ static int doShell(rpmSpec spec)
}
#endif
+static int printSpecAddresses(rpmSpec spec, bool printPatches)
+{
+ SpecSrcIter iter(rpmSpecSrcIterInit(spec));
+ if (!iter) return 1;
+ rpmSpecSrc src;
+ while ((src = rpmSpecSrcIterNext(iter.get())) != NULL)
+ {
+ bool isPatch = (rpmSpecSrcFlags(src) & RPMBUILD_ISPATCH) != 0;
+
+ if (isPatch == printPatches){
+ const char* url = rpmSpecSrcFilename(src,1);
+ if (url) fprintf(stdout, "%s\n", url);
Testing for NULL here isn't wrong per-se, but it's redundant / perhaps a bit
misleading: we have a valid iterator here, it cannot return a NULL unless
there's an internal bug someplace else.
Static analyzers and the like are eager to splatter NULL-checks every which way
but I've grown very wary of that over the years - they obfuscate the code and
the expected semantics to a point where nobody can tell how a thing is
*supposed to* work.
--
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4262#pullrequestreview-4651999066
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Message ID: <rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/4262/review/[email protected]>_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
