Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-22 Thread Valentin Nechayev
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

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread George V. Neville-Neil
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

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
if it's valid, but I believe >> Segfaulting on freeaddrinfo(NULL) can make something safer for the >> reason I described above. That is, catching a bug earlier *can* >> make a safer result. > In some conditions. But we have to take into account the fact that other > sy

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Thomas Quinot
riants he expects. If freeaddrinfo did noop in face of a NULL argument, the programmer could very well *know* that the pointer may be NULL, and would not bother to check that. > freeaddrinfo(NULL) segfaults, we found the bug at this point. If > freeaddrinfo(NULL) does no-op, the latter part of the fun

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
>>>>> 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

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Valentin Nechayev
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

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉
>>>>> 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 p

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Brooks Davis
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. >

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Thomas Quinot
* 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

Re: freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Hajimu UMEMOTO
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

freeaddrinfo(NULL)

2004-09-21 Thread Thomas Quinot
Currently a call to freeaddrinfo (NULL) causes a segfault. Is there any reason why we should not make that a no-op? This would make freeaddrinfo behave in a manner consistent with free(3), and also with what happens on Linux. Thomas. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED