On 07/04/2011 07:29 PM, walter harms wrote: > > > Am 04.07.2011 08:09, schrieb Peter Hutterer: >> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer <[email protected]> >> --- >> hw/xfree86/common/xf86Option.c | 2 +- >> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Option.c b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Option.c >> index 480f386..a3a836f 100644 >> --- a/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Option.c >> +++ b/hw/xfree86/common/xf86Option.c >> @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ pointer >> xf86AddNewOption(pointer head, const char *name, const char *val) >> { >> /* XXX These should actually be allocated in the parser library. */ >> - char *tmp = strdup(val); >> + char *tmp = val ? strdup(val) : NULL; >> char *tmp_name = strdup(name); >> >> return xf86addNewOption(head, tmp_name, tmp); > > maybe "\0" is better here ? i have no clue what is done later with tmp_name > (possible nothing) but making a valid string pointer here removes the need for > things like: val ? strdup(val) : NULL; >
NULL and '\0' have different semantics: NULL: undefined '\0': defined, but empty so mixing would be bad because it breaks semantics grtz -- Ferry Huberts _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
