Ben Pfaff <b...@cs.stanford.edu> writes: > John Darrington <j...@darrington.wattle.id.au> writes: > >> These all look fine to me, except the last one: >> >> diff --git a/src/ui/gui/psppire-dict.c b/src/ui/gui/psppire-dict.c >> index 04bd3e3..5c6cfeb 100644 >> --- a/src/ui/gui/psppire-dict.c >> +++ b/src/ui/gui/psppire-dict.c >> @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ psppire_dict_get_variable (const PsppireDict *d, gint >> idx) >> g_return_val_if_fail (d, NULL); >> g_return_val_if_fail (d->dict, NULL); >> >> - if ( dict_get_var_cnt (d->dict) <= idx ) >> + if ( idx < 0 || dict_get_var_cnt (d->dict) <= idx ) >> return NULL; >> >> I'm kinda interested to know why we're silently returning NULL anyway, >> and not using g_return_val_if_fail. Most probably this is/was a kludge >> to avoid some other problem. Perhaps it is no longer necessary. Anyway, >> I'd be interested to see what happens if we change it to use >> g_return_val_if_fail. > > Thanks for the reviews. I pushed all of the commits but that > one. I'll take a look at its callers to see whether we can just > switch to g_return_val_if_fail and put the new patch at the > beginning of my next series.
I don't see a reason to avoid g_return_val_if_fail here so I've changed the patch to do that instead. Thanks again. _______________________________________________ pspp-dev mailing list pspp-dev@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pspp-dev
