Andrey Okoshkin <a.okosh...@samsung.com> writes: > I think, the main benefits are: > * Code is more readable, no duplicated calls with the same constant string > argument. > * Code is potentially safer, the second getenv() call may return another > pointer value which could be NULL (and yes, this is an arguable point as it > can be done only artificially). > >> For the sake of fairness, I would say that the resulting code may be >> easier to follow and has one less instance of a constant string that >> the compiler cannot statically check if we made a typo. That's the >> only benefit in this patch as far as I can see. >> >> The original makes a call to see if the result is NULL, and then >> makes the same call, expecting that we get the same result (not just >> that it is not NULL, but it is the same verbosity request the end >> user made via the environment as the one we checked earlier), and I >> can understand that it feels a bit redundant and ugly. > > Yes, you absolutely right.
I am absolutely right when I say your "code is potentially safer" is total BS. The result from first getenv() call may be pointing at an invalid piece of memory by the time it is used, if you are in a situation in which not having the second getenv() matters (i.e. somebody else is also mucking with getenv() at the same time). So please update the log message so that the patch is not sold on that basis. Thanks.
