On 13.10.2008, Tim Brown wrote: > On Monday 13 October 2008 11:58:07 Bernhard Herzog wrote: > > AFAICT, the code in nasl_cmd_exec.c depends on anything from glib, so > > this include shouldn't be necessary. > > Well it does at the moment, since I used TRUE and FALSE.
Well, nasl_cmd_exec.c only uses FALSE, and all uses are comparisons with a FILE*. In addition to the one in line 281, there's another one in line 414. > > Why is the file pointer compared to FALSE? FALSE is conceptually a > > boolean and an int whereas fp is a pointer to FILE. This doesn't make > > sense. > > Oops well caught. I was trying to avoid using something such as !fp since > I'm not a big fan of implicit comparisons. > > You can tell this code was written late in to the night :(. Yeah, this kind of thing can happen to anybody. It might be a good idea to take this as an opportunity to extend the NASL test-suite I started in openvas-libnasl/test/ a while ago. Ideally, whenever the NASL interpreter is modified and the affected NASL-functions are not already covered by the test-suite, a corresponding test should be added before changing the NASL interpreter to make sure the behavior at least stays the same. Regards, Bernhard -- Bernhard Herzog | ++49-541-335 08 30 | http://www.intevation.de/ Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Openvas-devel mailing list Openvas-devel@wald.intevation.org http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
