Re: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers?
H. Peter Anvin (hpa@zytor.com)
10 Jul 2003 15:12:02 -0700
Followup to: <3F0DD21B.5010408@inet.com>
By author: Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Alan Stern wrote:
> [snip]
> > Ultimately this comes down to a question of style and taste. This
> > particular issue is not addressed in Documentation/CodingStyle so I'm
> > raising it here. My personal preference is for code that means what it
> > says; if a pointer is checked it should be because there is a genuine
> > possibility that the pointer _is_ NULL. I see no reason for pure
> > paranoia, particularly if it's not commented as such.
> >
> > Comments, anyone?
>
> BUG_ON() perhaps?
>
BUG_ON() is largely redundant if you would have a null pointer
reference anyway.
-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
If you send me mail in HTML format I will assume it's spam.
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
Architectures needed: ia64 m68k mips64 ppc ppc64 s390 s390x sh v850 x86-64
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/