Le 29/12/2012 08:35, Philip Guenther a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Le 29/12/2012 02:46, Philip Guenther a écrit :
>>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
glamourous ti
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:53:15PM +1100, Aaron Mason wrote:
> Ok, I just tried freeing NULL, and it did nothing. Granted it was on
> a Linux system but still...
>
> I stand by my argument that there's no clear improvement, especially
> on a modern system.
It's less code, and code gets copied, a
Le 31/12/2012 08:33, Otto Moerbeek a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:53:15PM +1100, Aaron Mason wrote:
>
>> Ok, I just tried freeing NULL, and it did nothing. Granted it was on
>> a Linux system but still...
>>
>
> Wrong method, Just check the definition of free(3). It is OK to call
> free(
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:53:15PM +1100, Aaron Mason wrote:
> Ok, I just tried freeing NULL, and it did nothing. Granted it was on
> a Linux system but still...
>
Wrong method, Just check the definition of free(3). It is OK to call
free(3) on a NULL pointer since C89 at least.
-Otto
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 04:53:15PM +1100, Aaron Mason wrote:
> Ok, I just tried freeing NULL, and it did nothing. Granted it was on
> a Linux system but still...
free() handles a NULL pointer by doing nothing, and it will behave this
way on any posix system compliant system. However, on an OpenBS
Ok, I just tried freeing NULL, and it did nothing. Granted it was on
a Linux system but still...
I stand by my argument that there's no clear improvement, especially
on a modern system.
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Aaron Mason wrote:
> Maxime
>
> I'm not entirely clear on what you hoped to
Maxime
I'm not entirely clear on what you hoped to achieve with the diffs
below, if anything you're inducing possible segfaults if any of those
values are NULL. That aside, I fail to see how this could be
construed as any sort of improvement.
> Index: pfctl_osfp.c
> =
On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 10:16 PM, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Le 29/12/2012 02:46, Philip Guenther a écrit :
>> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>>> Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
>>> glamourous title here.
>>
>> The fd/FILE part of your diff changes
Le 29/12/2012 02:46, Philip Guenther a écrit :
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
>> Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
>> glamourous title here.
>
> The fd/FILE part of your diff changes the behavior of pfctl to be
> incorrect when there are no stat
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 5:04 AM, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
> glamourous title here.
The fd/FILE part of your diff changes the behavior of pfctl to be
incorrect when there are no states.
Philip Guenther
You can enable a bunch of warnings with WARNINGS=Yes in our tree.
On Dec 28, 2012 3:34 PM, "Kenneth R Westerback"
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 02:04:24PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> > Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
> > glamourous title here.
> >
> > btw, i wond
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 02:04:24PM +0100, Maxime Villard wrote:
> Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
> glamourous title here.
>
> btw, i wonder why you don't put -Wextra to the makefile, you would
> see that there are a lot of unused parameters, comparisons between
> signe
Well, as no one seems to give a fuck on tech@, I put a more
glamourous title here.
btw, i wonder why you don't put -Wextra to the makefile, you would
see that there are a lot of unused parameters, comparisons between
signed and unsigned, uninitialized vars, ...
Message original
13 matches
Mail list logo
