Dear Joe, In message <CANr=Z=bxwwKkpUa_UzegN=E=tuqzenudttze7fdc+icu9b6...@mail.gmail.com> you wrote: > > > 1) Handle this locally, say like that: ... > I think this solution is not needed. In this particular case, we are > always printing the pointer to a member inside the fdt, so even if the > image is at 0, no pointer that we are printing will ever be at 0. > Therefore this is code that will never run and can be left out.
If we would decide for this variant, such reasoning should be explained in a comment. > > Would anybody shed any tears if we drop this? > > Getting rid of this would be good in general IMO. I never did > understand why printing "(null)" was better than "0". I guess for the same reasons we are forced^W encouraged to write NULL instead of 0 . In the standard C library it certainly makes sense to note specifically if one tries to dereference a NULL pointer, because this is aways a bug. Best regards, Wolfgang Denk -- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: [email protected] I have never understood the female capacity to avoid a direct answer to any question. -- Spock, "This Side of Paradise", stardate 3417.3 _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
