On Thu, 2010-05-20 at 10:03 +0200, Paul Vriens wrote: > >> The main reason I'm asking is because we have several of these lingering > >> around (and marked as 'FALSE' in Coverity). > > > > In this particular case we should just get rid of the goto. > > > > > But is it a (potential) issue? I guess not. If it's not an issue wee can > leave the code as is, not?
It's a header construction where you typically exploit the fact that the header and extended structure start at the same address. So yes, we could leave the code as is.
