On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 09:15:25AM +0300, Benjamin wrote: > Can the tests for NULL hurt? If not, it's always a good thing to have them.
They can make code harder to read and they do take a tiny amount of time, but when in doubt... checking for NULL is almost always a good idea. Coverity sometimes goes crazy and complains about code that is clearly correct. But if it shows a potential NULL dereference, I try to add a test. > After all, tasks dying due to random NULL pointers are so fun to see in > production systems. Not that I'm crying about code quality in various > things at $WORK at all... Hehe... /D _______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
