On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 05:22, Detlev Zundel wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> but the point isnt the impact of this single check. it sets the
>> precedence that every function in u-boot that takes a pointer should
>> start over protecting itself against poorly written code originating
>> elsewhere. now your "few characters" is quite a bit more.
>
> I still stand by what I said that if we have functions that can be
> called from many places (i.e. "library"-like), then the functions should
> be conservative in what they expect. Tightly coupled code can be looser
> in this respect. Maybe our disagreement stems from the fact that you
> consider this function to be "tightly coupled" and not really library
> like?
not really. i consider this to be "garbage-in garbage-out". imo,
u-boot isnt a C library that should be padded with garbage checking
all over. the result only helps broken systems (edge cases) while
hindering the rest.
i wouldnt have a problem with adopting an NDEBUG system, or perhaps
adding assert()'s to this code. then people can easily opt-out of it
all and for the people doing development, can easily turn things on.
assert(name != NULL);
the current miiphy system needs to be replaced (this runtime string
based approach is crazy), but that's a completely different topic :).
-mike
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
