Daniel Veillard wrote:
...
However, the point is still valid, so I'll wait for confirmation.
This is still about defensive coding, i.e., ensuring that
maintenance doesn't violate invariants in harder-to-diagnose ways.
If you get a bug report, which would you rather hear?
libvirt sometimes
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:03:23AM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:37:57AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
However, the point is still valid, so I'll wait for confirmation.
This is still about defensive coding, i.e., ensuring that
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:13:24PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
...
However, the point is still valid, so I'll wait for confirmation.
This is still about defensive coding, i.e., ensuring that
maintenance doesn't violate invariants in harder-to-diagnose ways.
If you
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:46:11PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
As the log says, once we've dereferenced it,
there's no point in comparing to NULL.
From 463eaf1027a154e71839a67eca85b3ada8b817ff Mon Sep
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 09:55:23PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:46:11PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
As the log says, once we've dereferenced it,
there's no point in comparing to NULL.
From
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:37:57AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Considering that this is in the daemon and that bad things
have been known to happen via NULL derefs, some would
argue that an assertion failure is preferable.
No, this code is the client side of the
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 11:03:23AM +0100, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 09:37:57AM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
However, the point is still valid, so I'll wait for confirmation.
This is still about defensive coding, i.e., ensuring that
maintenance doesn't violate
As the log says, once we've dereferenced it,
there's no point in comparing to NULL.
From 463eaf1027a154e71839a67eca85b3ada8b817ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:45:07 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] don't test res == NULL after we've already
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:46:11PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
As the log says, once we've dereferenced it,
there's no point in comparing to NULL.
From 463eaf1027a154e71839a67eca85b3ada8b817ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:45:07
Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 12:46:11PM +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
As the log says, once we've dereferenced it,
there's no point in comparing to NULL.
From 463eaf1027a154e71839a67eca85b3ada8b817ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jim Meyering meyer...@redhat.com
Date: Wed,
10 matches
Mail list logo