Hi, On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 11:16:42AM +0100, Alexandre Julliard wrote: > Aric Cyr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Ya, I thought about that after I sent my previous mail as well... an assert > > would probably be more useful for checking "This". I also disagree that > > "This" > > is guaranteed to always be non-NULL. There really is no way you can force > > policy how a user calls the function, so minimally checking (or aborting) on > > NULL is a sane thing to do. It doesn't hurt the code, and catches potential > > usage problems. > > Not checking at all and crashing works just as well to catch problems, > and doesn't hurt performance. There's no reason to add NULL checks > unless there is a Windows app that depends on it.
Exactly! "Stupid" NULL pointer checks even actively hurt debugging since in severe cases you may have a function "properly" (*cough*) failing due to a NULL pointer check, but then "unfortunately" you notice the effect of this "properly checked" anomaly "only" 3 layers and 5000 relay log lines later when something almost entirely unrelated really breaks with a SEGV. Have fun wasting the time to trace back those 3 layers to the real offender... Andreas Mohr -- No programming skills!? Why not help translate many Linux applications! https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/rosetta
