[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       freebsd-hackers
Subject:    Re: [patch] burncd: honour for envar SPEED
From:       pluknet <pluknet () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-11-10 20:24:28
Message-ID: a31046fc0911101224i4550e3a4g2af73e5ff1828a3f () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2009/11/10 Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no>:
> Alexander Best <alexbestms@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 - des@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-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]