Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:35:02 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alan Stern <> | Subject | Re: Style question: Should one check for NULL pointers? |
| |
On Thu, 10 Jul 2003, Eli Carter wrote:
> 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?
Not really needed, since a segfault will produce almost as much information as a BUG_ON(). Certainly it will produce enough to let a developer know that the pointer was NULL.
Alan Stern>
- 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/
| |