On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 08:47:45AM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Hi again, > > Pierre Habouzit wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 06:30:58PM -0500, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > > >>> Why not (4 + i) * sizeof(targv[0])? > > > > actually I missed that question, it's because in a previous iteration of > > the patch > > Thanks for the explanation. That’s a comfort. > > >>> Needed for the !taropts case. Good. > > > > actually this isn't really needed anymore either (before when !taropts, > > I had kept the old code, and I didn't used the malloced argv). > > memcpy(dst, src, 0) will do what it should, even when src is NULL. > > What you say makes sense, so I just checked Posix to see if there were > any gotchas. It is silent on the issue and defers to ISO C. The C > standard itself (at least C99 TC2 from > http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards.html#9899 ) > stubbornly refuses to standardize[1] on the sane behavior: > > Where an argument declared as size_t n specifies the > length of the array for a function, n can have the value > zero on a call to that function. Unless explicitly stated > otherwise in the description of a particular function in > this subclause, pointer arguments on such a call shall > still have valid values, as described in 7.1.4. > > Sadly the description of memcpy() has nothing to add.
Yeah right, OTOH I see absolutely no-one causing a segfault is the address insn't valid. > > But it's only cosmetics of course. > > Right, it’s only theoretical. If the if is missing and people run > into problems dpkg could learn to deal with it then. Well I don't care if the if(i) is there or not after all, it's not even worth the discussion :) -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O [email protected] OOO http://www.madism.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
