David Bustos writes: > Quoth Tom Whitten on Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 01:18:20PM -0700: > > Ah. I see what your driving at. My inclination is to remove the assert > > and let the error return percolate back up to the callers. I've checked > > the tree of callers to verify that they properly handle this return. I > > also checked to see how the return is propagated back to libscf, and > > verified that callers of the library functions also properly handled the > > error return as it gets mapped. > > Ok, but please tell me more about your inclination: Do you know how np's > FMRI might be longer than REP_PROTOCOL_FMRI_LEN? My feeling is that > since REP_PROTOCOL_FMRI_LEN is computed from the maximum legal name > lengths, the existance of such a node indicates either a bug in the > node-creation code, or memory corruption. > > > David
Yes. You are correct. tom
