This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sourceware.org
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [patch] coff-i386, guard against null
On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 04:24:22PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 11:52:07AM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2007 at 07:41:39AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 07:18:55PM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> >> >> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2007 at 05:21:13PM -0700, msnyder@sonic.net wrote:
> >> >> > > Other code in this function checks to see if sym is null.
> >> >> > > If it's null here, it'll fail.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > 2007-07-25 Michael Snyder <msnyder@access-company.com>
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > * coff-i386.c (coff_i386_rtype_to_howto): Guard against null.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I prefer BFD_ASSERT (sym != NULL).
> >> >>
> >> >> BFD_ASSERT returns, though.
> >> >
> >> > I'd like to know when this condition happens. Crash is better than
> >> > silent return. That is how BFD_ASSERT is used other places.
> >>
> >> But it doesn't fix the problem that I set out to fix.
> >> If it returns, we'll still crash.
> >>
> >> H.J., the change I submitted is consistant with existing code
> >> in this module. There are six local uses of "if (x != NULL)",
> >> and only one local use of BFD_ASSERT. I don't mind if you want
> >> to add a BFD_ASSERT in addition, but why not let my change go in?
> >
> > OK with BFD_ASSERT.
>
> Sorry, I don't understand your reply.
Your change is OK if you also add a BFD_ASSERT so that we will
know something is wrong.
Thanks.
H.J.