Andreas Mohr <andi <at> rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de> writes: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:16:42AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > > Aric Cyr <Aric.Cyr <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > Ya, I thought about that after I sent my previous mail as well... an > > > assert would probably be more useful for checking "This". > > > > Not checking at all and crashing works just as well to catch problems, > > and doesn't hurt performance. There's no reason to add NULL checks > > unless there is a Windows app that depends on it. > > "Stupid" NULL pointer checks even actively hurt debugging since in severe > cases you may have a function "properly" (*cough*) failing due to a NULL > pointer check, but then "unfortunately" you notice the effect of this > "properly checked" anomaly "only" 3 layers and 5000 relay log lines later > when something almost entirely unrelated really breaks with a SEGV. > Have fun wasting the time to trace back those 3 layers to the real offender...
I'd have to (and did) agree that the NULL check for "This" wasn't a great idea, and thus suggested an assert. However, as wine does have a built in debugger, even that would really be unnecessary (as Alexandre pointed out), and crashing on the access would be just as good. I personally like asserts for getting debug info without needing to fire up a debugger since it is not always easy to reproduce a problem, especially when you aren't expecting any (and please no one suggest that I always launch all my apps with gdb... ;) Cheers, Aric
