Hi Dmitry, On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 12:44:05AM +0300, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > This is nice, thanks. > I have one question about the patch: > > [...] > > --- a/src/elflint.c > > +++ b/src/elflint.c > > @@ -706,7 +706,7 @@ section [%2d] '%s': XINDEX for zeroth entry not > > zero\n"), > > continue; > > } > > > > - const char *name = NULL; > > + const char *name = "<invalid>"; > > This variable is used in some checks, for example, it's being passed > to ebl_check_special_symbol. I'd like to make sure this change > doesn't have any unintended consequences.
Good question. I assumed it was ok, but double checked. It is used by ebl_check_special_symbol and various strcmps. The strcmps would actually have crashed if the name was NULL (all backends that implement check_special_symbol did handle NULL first before calling strcmp). Since "<invalid>" isn't a valid symbol name (the '<' and '>' are not normally used) it is fine in all places that use name to check against a valid symbol name. Cheers, Mark
