2009/11/10 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <d...@des.no>: > Alexander Best <alexbes...@wwu.de> writes: >> you're right. hundreds of functions cause segfaults when arg or args >> are NULL. either we add safety checks for all of them (massive >> overhead) or just leave them the way they are. > > The consensus in the C community is that adding such checks does more > harm than good, because a NULL pointer is usually a symptom of a bug > somewhere else in the application, and checking for a NULL pointer will > either hide that bug or trigger another error somewhere down the line, > possibly making the real bug harder to find, rather than easier. >
And which is a way some well known OS' developers like to choose to fix sec.holes. No cookie. P.S. I apologize for flaming on this. > (next week's topic: the return value of malloc(0)...) > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no -- wbr, pluknet _______________________________________________ freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
