On 21. 6. 25 16:31, Daniel Sahlberg wrote:
Den fre 20 juni 2025 kl 08:12 skrev Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>:

    Hi Bert,

    I've been going through the Serf code on trunk, trying to fix
    compiler
    warnings, and found something that I don't understand and don't
    want to
    just "fix" and possibly introduce a bug. I'm asking for your help, as
    you're the author of that code:

    
https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/serf/trunk/buckets/hpack_buckets.c?annotate=1926128#l1393


    I see a warning that 'status' is assigned but never used, and indeed
    that's the case; here is the assignment, on line 1479:

         if (ctx->reuse_item)
         {
             status = hpack_table_get(ctx->reuse_item, tbl,
                                      &keep_key, NULL,
                                      &keep_val, NULL);
         }


    and the return value is just ignored, even though
    hpack_table_get() can
    return an error. I don't know enough to make a safe decision, but
    just
    removing the assignment and 'status' seems wrong.

    I know it's been a long time since you wrote this. Still, do you have
    any suggestions?

    Thanks!

    -- Brane


Maybe...:

keep_key and keep_val are both initialized to NULL. The only use are the next two lines:

own_key = (ctx->key && ctx->key != keep_key);
own_val = (ctx->val && ctx->val != keep_val);

They in turn control if we can reuse the key/value from the ctx or need to copy the string to the entry.

hpack_table_get will fail if we send an invalid index (ctx->reuse_item == 0) or if the requested entry isn't found in the table. In both cases it will not modify keep_key and keep_val, remaining null, so own_key/own_val should be false, thus creating a copy.

To me it looks like optimization to avoid creating a new copy of the key/value if it already exists in the hpack table. Worst case, if hpack_table_get return an error, a new copy will be made wasting a bit of memory (which would probably be a reasonable thing to do anyway if it fails).

That's the conclusion I've come to, yes. But if this is the case, well, looking at the output of a function instead of its return value is not intuitive and should be avoided.

-- Brane


P.S.: For another case of such suspect design, see Subversion's auth providers, which always return "no error" but also set a "done" boolean by reference, which is the _actual_ returned status.

Reply via email to