Ease up, David. Cliff did the right thing here. Yes, maybe the "no checking" isn't documented, but it has been policy for a long while. Yes, we *should* document it. Nobody has got around to it is all. I'm surprised that you aren't familiar with it.
Cheers, -g On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 09:23:08AM +0100, David Reid wrote: > > * Remove the unnecessary parameter checks and the extra error codes that > > went along with them. The APR policy is to segfault on a NULL > parameter > > rather than silently returning some error code that the caller might > > not check anyway. > > Can't say I agree 100% with this, but if you say so, it must be. BTW, where > is this written/documented?? > > > * Also remove lots of unnecessary assertions (where the code would have > > segfaulted anyway, even without an explicit assert). I've tried to be > > sure that every one I removed will result in a virtually immediate > > segfault anyway. Ones that don't are the ones that are tricky to > debug. > > If I've removed too many, say so and I'll put them back. > > Whatever... > > > * Fix a misnamed APR_MEMORY_ASSERT -> APR_ASSERT_MEMORY, which was > causing > > apr_assert_memory() never to be compiled. Also fix a syntax error in > that > > function that's been there since rev 1.1 of apr_sms.c, which no one's > > ever noticed because they never compiled it before. > > If you checked you'd see that the misnamed assert tag was added in revision > 1.5 of the original file, and so the code that you claim was never built was > building quite happily up till that point. As for the screw up on the > naming, don't believe I missed that! > > david -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
