On Mon, 02/17 15:59, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Fam Zheng <f...@redhat.com> writes: > > On Sat, 02/15 11:01, Markus Armbruster wrote: > > Does this mean that error_is_set() is always used by programmer to check a > > non-NULL error pointer? Is there any case to call error_is_set(errp) without > > knowing if errp is NULL or not? If no, should we enforce the rule and add > > assert(errp) in error_is_set()? > > If you know ERRP can't be null, then error_is_set(ERRP) is pointless. > Just test *ERRP instead. > > If ERRP may be null, then error_is_set(ERRP) makes some sense: it saves > you spelling out ERRP && *ERRP. Personally, I'd prefer it spelled out, > though.
So the question is whether the returned boolean has any value to anyboday, if ERRP may be NULL. Fam
