On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Quentin Garnier <c...@cubidou.net> wrote: > On Sun, May 17, 2009 at 05:40:44PM +0300, Elad Efrat wrote: > [...] >> > 3. When (publicly, even) told about an obvious bug, you still go >> > ahead and commit it. >> >> False, the bug you're referring to wasn't the one that was fixed, see >> the commit diff: >> >> >> http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/sys/net/if_bridge.c.diff?r1=1.68&r2=1.69&f=h > > Yes, it's much different; instead of dereferencing crap because of an > invalid value of ifd_cmd, you were dereferencing NULL beacause of an > invalid value of ifd_cmd.
I find it more elegant. > What's really worse, though, is that gcc *told* you about bc being used > uninitialised, which I guess is why you added the XXXGCC comment at the > initialisation of bc. Gcc will keep telling us about bc being used uninitialized even after cegger@'s fix if you remove the initialization. The XXXGCC was added because we now set bc in a conditional scope and use it in another. My fault is that I didn't bail out if the check failed like I do with the kauth(9) call. I made a mistake, someone else fixed it, let's move on. -e.
