On 06/29/2015 04:32 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 04:00:51PM -0700, Ping Cheng wrote: >> I guess Bill meant "||" should be used instead of "&&"? One of the == NULL >> would lead to a crash... > > that'd would hide potential memory corruption or other bugs and won't show > up until later. if both are NULL, the code is correct. if one is NULL, we > should crash immediately because if our list is corrupted, there's no > sensible way of recovering. >
Exactly what I was thinking... Except that it might be worth adding some comment somewhere that explains the intent. A comment could be warranted here *if* this were an exception. However... there is an overall design intent with Wayland/Weston to intentionally allow such corruption to immediately cause crashes. That would seem to indicate something in perhaps a README/CONTRIBUTING or such. On the other hand, it could be considered non-obvious that the both-null case is the valid uninitialized situation and thus could warrant a comment after all. Given that there already was some misreading of Peter's intent, it might help maintenance to add a simple one. -- Jon A. Cruz - Senior Open Source Developer Samsung Open Source Group [email protected] _______________________________________________ wayland-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/wayland-devel
