Am 02.06.2013 19:59, schrieb Felipe Contreras:
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?

The person adding code that depends on ce not being NULL needs to add that check as well. Let's not worry too much about future changes that may or (more likely IMHO) may not be done. The test suite covers this case multiple times, so such a mistake doesn't have a realistic chance to hit master.

René


--
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