Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers? | Date | 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/
| |