On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 09:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Thomas Dickey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Michel D_nzer wrote: > > > On Sat, 2009-10-03 at 08:43 -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > >> On Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Michel Dnzer wrote: > >> > >>> What purpose is that? If these functions were actually called with a > >>> NULL PixmapPtr, surely the current code would have crashed with a > >>> segmentation fault. > >> > >> I suppose that if you prefer the server to crash rather than check error > >> conditions, there's no point in the change. > > > > I'd expect ModifyPixmapHeader getting called with a NULL PixmapPtr to > > always be a bug in the caller. I'd rather catch and fix that than cover > > it up. Maybe I'm missing something. > > The called function is one point to check, > the calling functions are potentially many. > > Duplicating checks around random points is something that we attempt to > train people not to do. > > awai > [i have not read the source nor the patch] sometimes, it is better to assert that a function is called with the right parameters. especially if you could not handle that error at that level in a sane way. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? >> A: Top-posting. >>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
