On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 12:54 PM, René Scharfe
<rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
> Am 02.06.2013 19:25, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 10:46 AM, René Scharfe
>> <rene.scha...@lsrfire.ath.cx> wrote:
>>> +               for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>>> +                       struct cache_entry *ce = src[i + o->merge];
>>> +                       if (ce != o->df_conflict_entry)
>> It's possible that ce is NULL, but you didn't add that check because
>> free(NULL) still works? Or because ce cannot be NULL?
>> If it's the former, I think it's clearer if we check that ce is not
>> NULL either way.
> It is NULL if one tree misses an entry (e.g. a new or removed file). free
> handles NULL and we generally avoid duplicating its NULL-check.

Yeah, but I can see somebody adding code inside that 'if' clause to
print the cache entry, and see a crash only to wonder what's going on.
And to save what? 5 characters?

Felipe Contreras
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to