Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 05:07:13, jinmei wrote about "Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)":
> I was not talking about things like whether NULL had been specially
> designed or not. I was basically talking about any invalid argument
> to freeaddrinfo.
Well, garbage in pointer is unquesti
At Wed, 22 Sep 2004 07:37:20 +0900,
(BJINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H(B wrote:
(B> Note also that other *BSDs and Solaris use the "segfault" logic. The
(B> freeaddrinfo implementation in the "libbind" library as a part of the
(B> ISC BIND package, which many UNIX-like OS vendors adopt
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 23:32:33 +0200,
> Thomas Quinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...snip]
It seems that all these points simply show this is a controversial
issue. I was not convinced with the argument for the no-op approach,
and still believe segfaulting is better. But at the same tim
* JINMEI Tatuya / [EMAIL PROTECTED]@C#:H, 2004-09-21 :
> (or is valid for freeaddrinfo). It's the caller's responsibility to
> ensure that this is a valid pointer. But consider the case where the
Exactly. And it is the callee's responsibility to enforce the invariants
he expects. If freeaddrinf
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 22:07:17 +0300,
> Valentin Nechayev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> As Umemoto-san said, if we made freeaddrinfo(NULL) "safe", the
>> application programmers might tend to rely on the "safety net" and
>> the uncareful coding style. This can be worse than the segfault h
Wed, Sep 22, 2004 at 03:58:05, jinmei wrote about "Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)":
> As Umemoto-san said, if we made freeaddrinfo(NULL) "safe", the
> application programmers might tend to rely on the "safety net" and
> the uncareful coding style. This can be wor
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 20:07:46 +0200,
> Thomas Quinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Because, the behavior of freeaddrinfo (NULL) is undefined in RFC 2553
>> nor RFC 3493. Having such an assumption is a potentially bug and
>> lose portability.
> Would there be any significant drawback for
On Tue, Sep 21, 2004 at 08:07:46PM +0200, Thomas Quinot wrote:
> * Hajimu UMEMOTO, 2004-09-21 :
>
> > Because, the behavior of freeaddrinfo (NULL) is undefined in RFC 2553
> > nor RFC 3493. Having such an assumption is a potentially bug and
> > lose portability.
>
> That a construct has no defin
* Hajimu UMEMOTO, 2004-09-21 :
> Because, the behavior of freeaddrinfo (NULL) is undefined in RFC 2553
> nor RFC 3493. Having such an assumption is a potentially bug and
> lose portability.
That a construct has no defined meaning does not imply that we must make
every effort to break application
Hi,
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 14:30:16 +0200
> Thomas Quinot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
thomas> Currently a call to freeaddrinfo (NULL) causes a segfault. Is there any
thomas> reason why we should not make that a no-op? This would make freeaddrinfo
thomas> behave in a manner consistent with fr
10 matches
Mail list logo
